Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Unknown vs Ms Written By Babur
1
                                                                   1501

description regarding India's Travel is the same." (E.T.C.)
       ^^fofy;e fQUp us vius ;k=k o`rkUr esa ;g fy[kk gS fd tc og
v;ks/;k x;k Fkk] mlus v;ks/;k dk fdyk] fxjh&iM+h gkyr esa ik;kA ;g
lgh gS fd fofy;e fQUp ds vuqlkj ml fdys dks jkek iSysl dgrs Fks]
;g fy[kk gSA** ¼ist 229½
       "William Finch has written in his travel account that
when he visited Ayodhya, he found the Fort of Ayodhya in a
dilapidated condition. It is correct that according to
William Finch, that fort was called Rama's Palace, it is
written." (E.T.C.)
       ^^;g lgh gS fd ftl le; fofy;e fQUp us v;ks/;k ;k=k
fd;k] ml le; ckcjh efLtn cu pqdh Fkh vkSj jke tUe LFkku efUnj
Hkh ekStwn Fkh] fdUrq fofy;e fQUp us bu nksuksa phtksa dk o.kZu vius
;k=k o`rkUr esa ugha fd;kA** ¼ist 229½
       "It is true that by the time William Finch travelled
Ayodhya, Babari mosque had already been constructed and
Ram Janmasthan Mandir (Temple of Rama's birthplace)
was also existent, but William Frinch did not mention these
two facts in his travel account." (E.T.C.)
       ^^esjs vuqlkj ckcjh efLtn v;ks/;k ds dsUnz LFkku ij cuh
gSA ;g lgh gS fd ckcjh efLtn jke dksV ds bykds ds yxHkx
chpkschp fLFkr gSA ;g esjh jk; gSA** ¼ist 236½
       "According to me, Babri mosque has been built at
the centre place of Ayodhya. It is correct that Babri
mosque is situated almost in the middle of Ram Kot area.
This is my opinion." (E.T.C.)
^eSaus VkbQu Fksyj dk o`rkar ugha i<+kA** ¼ist 237½
"I did not read the description of Tiffenthaler."(E.T.C.)
^^eSaus tkstsQ lkgc iknjh lkgc dk o`rkar iwjk i<+k ugha gSA** ¼ist 258½
"I have not studied entire description of Father
Joseph."(E.T.C.)
                                                                    1502

       ^^fofy;e fQUp lkgc ds o` r k ar dk s eS a ,d L=k sr
ekurk gwW aA eS a fofy;e fQUp lkgc ds o` r k ar dk s ck;l~ M
ekurk gwW aA **
                                                               ¼ist 258½
       "I regard the description of William Finch as a
source. I consider the description of William Finch to be
biased." (E.T.C.)
       ^^;g dguk xyr gS fd C;wd kuu lkgc us tk s
bUlfdz I 'ku ns[ k s Fk s og 1855 ds ckn fookfnr LFky ij
ugh a Fk s vkS j ogk a ij nwl j s bUlfdz I 'ku yxk fn;s x;sA ;g
Hkh dguk xyr gS fd 1855 esa dksbZ u;s bUlfdzI'ku yxs ;k mudks Hkh
1934&35 ds naxs esa rksM+ fn;k x;k gksA ij 1934^35 ds naxs esa fookfnr
LFky dks ,oa iqjkus yxs bUlfdzI'ku dks {kfr t:j igqaph FkhA** ¼ist
282½
       "It is wrong to say that the inscriptions seen by
Mr. Buchanan, were not present on the disputed site
after 1855 and some other inscriptions had been
installed there. It is also wrong to say that any new
inscription was installed in 1855 or the same was
destroyed in the riot of 1934-35. However, in the riot of
1934-35, damage was certainly caused to the disputed site
and previously installed inscription." (E.T.C.)
       ^^eSus viuh iqLrd ds ist 91 ij ;g Bhd fu"d"kZ fudkyk Fkk
fd ckcjh efLtn dk fuekZ.k rqxyd ;k 'kdhZt ds le; gqvk gksA
bldk vFkZ ;g Hkh gS fd 'kk;n ;g efLtn ckcj ds le; ;k ckcj }kjk
ugha cukbZ xbZ FkhA - - - - -esjk ;g Hkh fu"d"kZ blesa gS fd ckcj v;ks/;k
dHkh ugha vk;kA ;g Hkh esjk fu"d"kZ Bhd gS] tks eSaus ist 92 ij fy[kk
gS fd pwWafd ckcj v;ks/;k ugha vk;k] blfy, mldk jke tUeHkwfe efUnj
fxjkus dk loky iSnk ugha gksrkA** ¼ist 295½
       "I had drawn correct conclusion at page 91 of my
book that Babari mosque might have been constructed
                                                                 1503

during the time of Tughlaq or Sharkies. It also means that
probably this mosque was not built during the period of
Babar or by Babar... It is also my conclusion that Babar
never came to Ayodhya. This inference of mine is also
correct, as I have written at page 92, that since Babar did
not visit Ayodhya, no question of demolishing Ram Janma
Bhumi Mandir arises." (E.T.C.)
       ^^;g esjh jk; lgh gS fd vxj efLtn 'kdhZ 'kkldksa us cuok;k
gksxk rks og vo'; 1504 ds igys cuh gksxhA** ¼ist 300½
       "My this opinion is correct that if the mosque had
been built by Shirky rulers, it must have been built prior to
1504." (E.T.C.)
       ^^esjh jk; o fo'okl esa okn la[;k &489 ds izlrj 8 i`"B 5 vkSj
6 iSjkxzkQ 2 esa ;g dFku fd uD'kk utjh esa fn[kk, izkphu dfczLrku
mu eqlyekuksa ds gSa tks ckcj vkSj v;ks/;k ds iwoZ 'kkld dh yM+kbz esa
ekjs x, lgh ugha gSA** ¼ist 300½
       "In my opinion and belief, the statement contained in
paragraph no. 8 at page 5 and paragraph no. 2 of suit
no.4/89 to the effect that the old graveyard shown in the
site plan related to those Muslims who were killed during
the battle between Babar and previous ruler of Ayodhya, is
not correct." (E.T.C.)
       ^^bfrgkldkj ds :i esa eSa ;g dg ldrk gwWa fd ;g ckrsa xyr
gSaA efLtn ,oa dfcz L rku ds ckj s es a okn&i= esa fd, x,
vfHkdFku esj h ,sf rgkfld tk ap vkS j rF;k s a ls esy ugh a
[kkrs gS a rFkk esj h jk; ls fHkUu gS aA *^ ¼ist 300½
       "As a historian, I can say that these things are
incorrect. The        averments      regarding      mosque       and
graveyard made in the plaint do not tally with my
historical research and facts and differ from my
opinion." (E.T.C.)
                                                                            1504

               ^^usfoy lkgc us vius xtsfV;j esa fookfnr <kaps dks 'kk;n ckcjh
        efLtn dgk gSA mUgksaus vius xtsfV;j esa bl s Qkjlh tqcku ls dksbZ [kkl yxko gksA^^ ¼ist 28½
       " I made nomenclature of my children in Persian
language. It is not so that I have some special interest in
Persian Language." (E.T.C.)
       ^^eSaus ch0,0 1970 esa ikl fd;k Fkk] ,e0,0 ikfyfVdy lkbZal esa
1972 esa ikl fd;k vkSj mlds ckn ekMZu fgLV~h ls ,e0,0 lu~ 1974 esa
ikl fd;k FkkA^^ ¼ist 28½
       "I passed B.A. in 1970, M.A. in 1972 in Political
Science and thereafter, passed M.A. in Modern History in
1974." (E.T.C.)
       ^^;g lgh gS fd 11 o"kksZ ds lrr iz;kl ds ckn eq>s ih0,p0Mh0
dh fMxzh 1989 esa feyh FkhA blh chp esjh fu;qfDr rnFkZ :i esa 1974 esa
bykgkckn fo'ofon;ky; esa gks x;h FkhA ;g rnFkZ fu;qfDr izodrk
ds :i esa gqbZ FkhA 1989 esa eSa jhMj Hkh gks x;k FkkA** ¼ist 28½
       "It is true that after 11 years of continuous efforts I
secured Ph.D. Degree in 1989. Meanwhile, I was
appointed on ad hoc basis in Allahabad University in 1974.
This ad hoc appointment was made as a Lecturer. In 1989 I
became Reader also." (E.T.C.)
       ^^tuojh] 87 ls ysdj 1990 rd Jh cghmn~nhu efyd lkgc
bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky; ds dqyifr FksA Jh cghmn~nhu lkgc Hkh eq>s
tkurs FksA - - - - - 6 Qjojh] 79 dks esjh 'kknh esgj vQ'kka Qk:dh
lkfgck ls gqbZ FkhA** ¼ist 29½
       "From January 1987 to 1990 Sri Bahiuddin Malik
Saheb was the Vice Chancellor. Sri Bahiuddin Saheb also
knew me........On 6th February 79 my marriage took place
with Mehar Afshan Farooqi." (E.T.C.)
       ^^;g 'kknh esjh vkSj esjh iRuh ds ifjokj okyksa dh lgefr ls
ugha gqbZ FkhA^^ ¼ist 29½
       "This marriage did not take place with the consent of
                                                                  1506

my wife and family members." (E.T.C.)
       ^^viuh 'kknh ds jftLV~s'ku ds ckn fudkg dh t:jr blfy,
iM+h fd esjs lqljky okyksa dh Lohd`fr ds fy, ,oa lkekftd ekU;rk ds
fy, ,slk djuk mfpr FkkA** ¼ist 30½
       "Necessity of Nikah after registration of marriage,
arose with a view to obtain approval of my in-laws and for
social recognition it was essential to do so." (E.T.C.)
       ^^mUgksaus ;g Pokbl vo'; nh Fkh fd eSa fudkg dj yWwA ;gh esjs
llqjky okyksa dh Pokbl gh esjh Pokbl FkhA ¼fQj dgk½ esjh Hkh ;gh
PokbZl gks ldrh FkhA^^ ¼ist 30½
       "They had given me a choice that I should perform
Nikah. This choice of my in-laws was, in fact, my choice.
(Further said). Choice              of mine too could be only
this."(E.T.C.)
       ^^fudkg djus ds fy, eqlyeku gksuk vko';d FkkA blfy, eS
eqlyeku gqvk FkkA" ¼ist 30½
       " For materialization of Nikah it was necessary to be
a    Musalman.         Therefore,     I   got   converted      as    a
Muslim."(E.T.C.)
       ^^eq>s esjh iRuh us bl dk;Z esa budjst fd;k FkkA^^ ¼ist 33½
       " My wife encouraged me for this work." (E.T.C.)
       ^^esjs llqj 'ke'kqy jgeku Qk:[kh ds buh'kh;y ,l0vkj0
Qk:dh gSA^^ ¼ist 33½
       " Initial of my father in law, Shamshul Rehman
Farooqi, is S.R. Farooqi." (E.T.C.)
       ^^eSaus viuh iqLrd ds izhQsl esa ;g fy[kk gS fd esgj vQ'kka
Qk:dh blVksVZM ijlw;sMhx eh Vw ikiwykbfjt fn fgLVkfjdy
VqFkA^^¼ist 33½
       " In the Preface of my book I have written that
Mehar Afshan Farooqi started persuading me to
popularize the historical truth." (E.T.C.)
                                                                           1507

1353.          They also pointed out that though he was registered
for Ph.D. in 1978 having passed M.A. in Modern History in
1974 but could not complete Ph.D. for a decade. It is only in
1988 when Sri Vahiuddin Mullick was the Vice Chancellor of
Allahabad University and Chief Minister of U.P. was Sri
Mulayam Singh Yadav he was conferred Ph.D. in 1989. Sri
M.M. Pandey, Sri H.S. Jain and Sri R.L. Verma all the learned
counsels stated that PW 15 converted himself a 'muslim' for the
purpose of marriage and also changed his name as 'Sajid' but has
appeared in the witness box mentioning his name as Sushil
Srivastava and this also shows lack of bonafide on his part and
refers to his statement on page 49 and 50:
               ^^;g lgh gS fd ;Fkk vko';drkuqlkj eSa vius dks lkftn Hkh
        dg ysrk gwa vkSj lq'khy Hkh eku ysrk gwaA** ¼ist 49½
               "It is correct that as per requirement I use to say
        myself Sajid as well as Sushil." (E.T.C.)
               ^^eSaus [kqnk dh dle ugha yh gS bZ'oj dh dle yh gSA**¼ist 49½
               "I have not sworn in the name of 'Khuda', instead I
        have sworn in the name of 'Ishwar'." (E.T.C.)
               ^^esjk uke lkftn ugha gSA eSaus /keZ ifjorZu fd;k gS vkSj
        eqlyeku gqvk gwWaA ij esjs fy, /keZ dk dksbZ egRo ugha gSA eSa v/keZ esa
        fo'okl djrk gwWaA** ¼ist 50½
               "My name is not Sajid. I have got converted my
        religion and have become a Muslim but to me, the religion
        has     no      significance.       I    believe       in   Adharma
        (atheism)."(E.T.C.)
1354.          They also pointed out that the wife of PW 15 is well
qualified being M.A. in Medieval History and D.Phil. with
specialisation in "Economic Policy of Delhi Sultanate" which
she did in 1988 but her father was not a Historian and instead a
Government servant, a member of Indian Postal Service and
                                                                          1508

retired therefrom as is evident from page 50:
               ^^esjs llqj bf.M;u iksLVy lfoZl esa dk;Zjr FksA esjs llqj Hkh
        fyVjsjh fdzfVd gSa] dke Hkh djrs gSaA** ¼ist 50½
               "My father-in-law was posted in Indian Postal
        Services. He also is a literary critic and work as
        such."(E.T.C.)
1355.          About his conduct in the University the learned
counsel drew our attention to the statement of PW 15 at page
55/56:
               ^^;g dguk lgh ugha gS fd esjs vkpj.k ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ tkap
        gqbZ ;k ml tkap ds ckn eSa ogka ls gVk fn;k x;kA^^ ¼ist 55½
               "It is not correct to say that any enquiry was
        conducted regarding my character or that I was removed
        from there after the enquiry." (E.T.C.)
               ^^;g dguk xyr gS fd 'kkg us esjs vkpj.k ds ckjs esa ,d
        lnL;h; desVh ds :i esa esjh tkap fd;s FksA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh
        ugha gS fd mijksDr deh'ku us eq>s xyr c;ku nsus dk nks"kh ik;k FkkA
        eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd mijksDr deh'ku us mDr
        fo'ofo|ky; dh efgyk v/;kid dks rFkk efgyk Nk=kvksa ds izfr
        v'yhy vkpj.k ;k muds izfr v'yhy Hkk"kk O;Dr djus dk nks"kh ik;k
        gksA e>ss bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd mDr deh'ku us 13-4-99 dks
        viuh vk[;k izLrqr fd;k vkSj ;g lq>ko fn;k fd eq>s ogka ls fudky
        fn;k tk;sA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd fo'ofo|ky; ds
        flMhdsV us 30-4-99 dks vius izLrko la0 46 }kjk eq>s gsM vkQ fn
        fMikVZesaV vkSj DokMhZusVj vkSj Mh0vkj0,l0 izksxzke ls gVk fn;kA Lor%
        dgk fd e>s 5-5-99 dks flMhdsV }kjk bl vk'k; dk i= izkIr gqvk fd
        eSa gsM vkQ fMikVZeasV rFkk DokMhZusVj dk pktZ vU; v/;kid dks lkSai
        nwWaA eSaus fn0 11-6-99 dks vius izks0 in ls R;kxi= lkSai fn;k eSaus ;g
        dkj.k n'kkZ;k fd eSa xqtjkrh Hkk"kk ds VsLV dks ikl djus esa vleFkZ jgk
        gwWa vkSj pwafd mDr ijh{kk dks ikl fd;s cxSj eSa dUQeZ ugha fd;k tk
        ldrk FkkA rFkk bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky; esa esjh vodk'k dh vof/k
        lekIr gksus okyh FkhA eq>s bl dkj.k 28 twu] 99 dks dk;ZeqDr dj
                                                           1509

fn;k x;k FkkA** ¼ist 55½
      "It is wrong to say that Shah as a one member
Committee conducted the enquiry about my conduct. I am
not aware of the fact that the aforesaid Commission found
me guilty of tendering false statement. I have no knowledge
of this fact whether the Commission found me guilty of
indulging in scrofulous conduct or using salacious
language with lady teacher and students of the said
University. I have no knowledge of the fact that the
aforesaid Commission submitted its report on 13.04.1999,
recommending for my expulsion from there. I have no
knowledge of the fact that the Syndicate of the University
on 30.04.99, vide agenda No. 46, ousted me from the office
of the Head of the Department, Coordinator and DRS
programme. Of his own said that on 05.05.99 a letter of
Syndicate was received to the effect that I should hand over
the charges of the Head of Department and Coordinator to
another teacher. On 11.06.99 I submitted my resignation
from the post of Professor showing the reason that I have
been unable to qualify to the test of Gujarati language in as
much as, I could not be confirmed without clearing the
aforesaid test. And period of my leave was about to
exhaust. For this reason I was discharged from duty on
28.06.99." (E.T.C.)
      ^^;g lgh gS fd eSa Jh oh0,e0'kkg bUDok;jh desVh ds le{k
O;fDrxr :i ls mifLFkr gqvk FkkA^^ ¼ist 56½
        "It is correct that I appeared in person before Sri
V.M. Shah Enquiry Committee." (E.T.C.)
      ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd foHkkx ds lHkh v/;kidksa us esjs
fo:) ;g f'kdk;r fd;k Fkk fd og yksx esjs lkFk dke ugha dj ldrs
gSaA cfYd dsoy dqN v/;kidksa us gh bl izdkj dk izLrko fd;k FkkA
                                                                     1510

        ¼fQj dgk½ fd os yksx esjs gsM ds dk;Z ls larq"V ugha FksA ;g dguk
        xyr gS fd eq>s nqjkpj.k ds dkj.k fo'ofo|ky; ls fudkyk x;k vkSj
        ml vkns'k dks izkIr u djs eSaus bLrhQk ns fn;k vkSj okil bykgkckn
        pyk vk;kA^^ ¼ist 56½
              "It is correct to say that all the teachers of the
        Department complained against me that they could not
        work with me. Rather, only few teachers made such
        proposal. (Further said ) that they were not satisfied with
        my work as Head. It is wrong to say that due to
        misconduct, I was expelled from the            University and
        without receiving that order, I resigned and returned to
        Allahabad." (E.T.C.)
1356.         For our purposes, however, suffice it to mention that
PW 15 has make out a new case and says that according to his
study there is grievous doubt whether Babar built the mosque in
dispute. He says that neither there is any material to show that
Babar ever visited Ayodhya nor the name "Mir Baqi" finds
mention in Baburnama. On page 217 he admits that as a result
of his research he has written on page 89 of his book that
inscriptions might have been fixed on the disputed building later
on mentioning that the disputed building was built by Babar and
on page 295 he refers to page 91 of his book where he has said
that the disputed building might have been constructed at the
time of Tughlaqs or Sharkis and may not have been built by
Babar. On page 300 he further says that if constructed by Sharki
Rulers, the disputed building might have been constructed prior
to 1504. He also says that averments in para 2 and 8 of the plaint
(Suit-4) that graves around the disputed building were of those
muslims who died in battle between Babar and the erstwhile
ruler of Ayodhya are incorrect statements (page 300). The
witness, therefore, has not supported the case of plaintiff (Suit-
                                                               1511

4) and on the contrary has taken a totally different stand. In fact
by reaching such inference, he has stated in his examination-in-
chief that the disputed building was not constructed after
demolishing a temple by Babar.
1357.       Here one more aspect we need to mention. Though
the witness has been produced as Expert Historian but on page
222 he admits that he had a very little knowledge of history.
That being so according to own statement of the witness his
statement cannot be taken as an opinion of an Expert Historian
and, therefore, inadmissible under Section 45 of the Evidence
Act. Even otherwise, the extract of his statement we have
noticed above make it clear that neither the witness has made
any threadbare inquiry into the matter nor has done his job
honestly yet has written a book based on hearse and has claimed
it to be a book written by an Expert. He admits that he cannot
read Persian, Arabic, Sanskrit and Urdu (Page 33). He admits
that despite being historian he has accepted whatever said by
others on the basis of their alleged scholarly feeling and wrote it
in his book as a statement of fact (page 38). He has never
studied either Calligraphy or Epigraphy (Page 51) but has made
statement and recorded finding in this regard in his book. On
page 65 he admits that he has raised doubt on the Calligraphy
style of the text of the inscription at Babri mosque but
simultaneously admits that he had not the least knowledge of art
and science of Calligraphy. We in fact find it surprising with the
kind of dishonesty, such person has shown. In his book he has
given in the footnote reference of a number of books which he
admits that he had never studied (page 68). On page 77 he says
that he did not pay attention on the fact whether the inscriptions
were installed from the beginning or installed subsequently but
                                                             1512

on page 217 admits that he has written on page 89 of his book
that there is a possibility that the inscriptions might have been
installed subsequently. On page 106 on the one hand he admits
that    he   lacks   knowledge   of   Epigraphy,    Numismatic,
Archeology, Survey of Land, Science of Architecture, Turkish,
Arabic and Persian language yet simultaneously he says that
though the period of construction of the disputed structure, he
could not conclude but according to him it relates prior to
Mughal period. We are sorry to find that a person like PW 15
has written a book on such an important and sensitive matter
without having made an in-depth study on the subject and has
deposed before us claiming himself to be an Expert Historian
though simultaneously admit that he has a very little knowledge
of history. On page 218 and 219 again contradicting his earlier
statement he said that he has made research on the question as to
how much old and of which period the inscriptions are and
found that the inner inscription appears to be new from the style
of calligraphy while the outer one is old. Despite admitting the
fact that he has no knowledge of calligraphy he has made such
comments on calligraphy of the text of inscription which is not
expected from a responsible Expert Historian. Besides his
statement ex facie appears to be incorrect in view of the
admitted position as also mentioned in Epigraphica Indica
(1965) published by ASI that there were three inscriptions out of
which two got misplaced in 1934 and were restored by new one
which had some mistakes and did not contain the correct
original text.
1358.        The lack of expertise of PW 15 in respect to
Medieval History has also been commented by plaintiff's (Suit-
4)'s another witness, i.e., PW 20, Shirin Musvi on page 129 of
                                                                             1513

her statement where she said:
               ^^eSa Jh lwjtHkku tks ,d vkfd;ksZykftLV gS Mk0 lqohjk
        tk;loky tks ,slh;UV bf.M;u fgLVksfj;u gSa vkSj Jh lq ' khy
        JhokLro tk s ekMZ u bfrgkldkj gS a mudh bl jk; ls ;fn
        mUgksaus ,slk dgk gS fd ehjckdh ,d f'k;k Fkk mudh bl jk; ls lger
        ugha gwWa pwwafd ok s yk sx esf Moy fgLV~ h ds ,FkkfjVh ugh a gS A **
                                                                       ¼ist 129½
               "I do not agree with the opinion of Sri Surajbhan, an
        Archaeologist,       Dr.    Suvira     Jaiswal,      Ancient     Indian
        Historian and Sri Sushil Srivastava, Modern Historian
        and if they have said so that Mir Baqi was a Shiya, I do not
        agree with their opinion because they are not authority
        on Medieval History." (E.T.C.)
1359.          PW 16, Prof. Suraj Bhan in his cross-examination
has said:
               ^^eq > s fookfnr LFky ij f'kykys[ k tk s ehjckdh }kjk
        yxok;k x;k Fkk mlds vykok vkS j dk sb Z ,ihxz k fQdy
        bohMs al ugh a feyh ftlds vk/kkj ij ;g dgk tk lds fd
        fookfnr <k ap k dk uke ckcjh efLtn gk sA ;g f'kykys[k mruk
        gh iqjkuk Fkk ftruh efLtnA^^ ¼ist 157½
               "Except for an inscription carved by Mir Baqi, I
        did not come across any other epigraphical evidence on
        the basis of which the disputed site may be called Babri
        Masjid. This inscription is as old as this masjid." (E.T.C.)
               ^^fookfnr <kaps esa 2 txg ij bUlfdzI'ku yxs gq, FksA ;g nksuksa
        bUlfdzI'ku iRFkj esa [kqns gq,s Fks ijUrq ckgj okys bUlhdzI'ku dk Lysc
        nhokj esa fQDl FkkA ;g nksuksa mijksDr bUlfdzI'ku Qkjlh Hkk"kk esa fy[ks
        Fksa eSa Qkjlh ugha tkurk ;g lgh gS fd eSa Qkjlh ugha i<+ ldrk
        blfy, ekSds ij eSa mu nksuksa bUlfdzI'ku dks ugha i<+ ldrk Fkk vkSj
        vanj okyh bUlfdzI'ku dks ns[k Hkh ugha ik;kA** ¼ist&175½
               "Inscriptions were engraved at two places in the
                                                                    1514

disputed structure. Both of the inscriptions were engraved
in the stone but the slab of the outside inscription was fixed
in the wall. Both these inscriptions were written in Persian
language. I do not know Persian. It is true that I can not
read Persian. So I, could not read both the inscriptions at
the    site    and     could     not     even     see     the    inside
inscription."(E.T.C.)
       ^^;g efLtn ckcj dh viuh cuokbZ gqbZ ugha Fkh] cfYd ;g
ehjckdh }kjk ckcj dh btkt+r ls cuokbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj blh dkj.k ckcjh
efLtn ehjckdh ds lk/kuksa ds vuq:i gh cuh FkhA^^ ¼ist 334½
       "This mosque not built by Babar on his own; rather,
it was built by Mir Baqi with the permission of Babar, and
for this very reason, the Babri mosque was built only as per
the means of Mir Baqi." (E.T.C.)
       ^^efLtn esa fy[ks f'kykys[k esa ;g fy[kk Fkk vkSj efLtn ds rksM+s
tkus ls igys eSaus mls ns[kk Hkh Fkk vkSj mlds ckjs esa dbZ fjdkMZl gSa]
tks Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk gesa fn, x, Fks] muesa i<+k gS rFkk v;ks/;k ds
Åij fy[kh xbZ fdrkc esa Hkh i<+k gSA
       ;g ,ihxzkQ+] efLtn ds eq[; }kj] iqu% fd] ;kuh efLtn ds
eq[; xqEcn esa tkus okys }kj ds Åij yxk FkkA bl f'kykys[k esa ckcjh
efLtn ds cuk, tkus ds ckjs esa fy[kk gS] tks eSa vius igys ds c;kuksa esa
crk pqdk gwaA ;g f'kykys[ k Q+k jlh es a gS A bl f'kykys[k esa ;g
ugha fy[kk gS fd ;g efLtn fdlh vkSj Hkou dks rksM+dj cukbZ xbZ gSA**
                                                         ¼ist 334&335½
       "It was so written in the stone inscription at the
mosque and the same had also been seen by me before
demolition of the mosque. There are several records in this
behalf, which have been provided to us by the Government
of India. I have read it in them and also in the books
written about Ayodhya.
       This epigraph was engraved at the main gate of the
                                                                    1515

mosque (again stated) that is to say, above the gate leading
to the main dome of the mosque. This stone inscription
refers about the construction of the Babri mosque, about
which I have already stated. This inscription is in
Persian. This inscription does not mentioned that this
mosque       was      built     by     demolishing           any   other
building."(E.T.C.)
^^ckcjh efLtn ds f'kykys[ k ls ;g Li"V gS fd ;g ckcj
ds le; esa lu~ 1528 bZ L oh es a cuk;h x;h FkhA** ¼ist 433½
"From the inscriptions of Babri mosque, it is clear that
it was built in the year 1528 AD during the times of
Babar." (E.T.C.)
       ^^;g fo}kuksa us r; dj fn;k gS fd ;g <kWapk ckcj ds le; esa
lu~ 1528 bZ0 esa cuk;k x;k Fkk] eSa Hkh bldks lgh ekurk gwWaA**¼ist 433½
       "It has been determined by the scholars that this
structure had been built in the year 1528 AD during the
times of Babar. I also consider it to be correct." (E.T.C.)
       ^^ckcjh efLtn dk fuekZ.k izkIr rF;ksa ds vuqlkj lu~ 1528&29
bZLoh esa gqvk FkkA tks eqxy dky esa iM+rk gSA** ¼ist 457½
       "According to the facts determined, Babri mosque
was built in the year 1528-29 AD, which falls in the
Mughal period." (E.T.C.)
       ^^esjk bl <kWaps dks ckcjh efLtn dgus ds ihNs vkSj dksbZ fo'ks"k
mn~ns'; ugha gS] flok; blds fd eSa iqjkrRoosRrk gwWa vkSj ckcjh efLtn
dk <kWapk iqjkrkfRod gSfjVst Fkk] blh uke ls tkuk tkrk FkkA eSaus bls
ns[kk Fkk] bldks blh uke ls eSaus vius ys[kksa esa fy[kk gSA ;g vf/kd
MsQfuV vkSj vf/kd fizlkbZt <ax ls ml s
ekywe nsrk gSA** ¼ist 457½
       "I have no special motive in calling this structure
Babri mosque, except for the fact that I am an
archaeologist and the structure of Babri mosque was a
                                                               1516

        archaeological heritage and was known by this name. I had
        seen it and have mentioned it so in my articles. It appears
        to me, to be a more definite and precise method of
        describing the said structure." (E.T.C.)
1360.         The statement of PW 16 in respect to period of
construction and the person by whom, is solely based on two
inscriptions which he claims to have affixed on the disputed
building in Persian language though neither the witness can read
Persian nor could see the inner one. Here also on page 157 read
with 334 and 335 though the witness claims that the inscriptions
which were installed when he visited the premises were the
same as were installed at the time of construction of the building
and this shows that he has not read the text of the inscriptions as
published in different books from time to time and had no
occasion to compare the same but the statement has been made
on pure conjecture and surmises.
1361.         The expertise of PW 16 on the matter relating to
Medieval History has been doubted by another witness of
plaintiff (Suit-4), i.e., PW 20, Shirin Musvi in her statement on
page 129.
1362.         Further the witness do not claim to be an Expert
Historian but he is an Expert Archaeologist. Since he has written
an Article on the disputed building i.e. Paper No. 110C1/8
(Exhibit D37, Suit-5), it appears that to support its contents, he
came in witness box in his first appearance. For our purposes
suffice it to mention that here also the sole foundation for
claiming the period of construction of the building as "1528
AD" by Mir Baqi, the entire stress is on the said inscriptions and
nothing else.
1363.         Another Expert Historian Suvira Jaiswal-P.W.18, in
                                                                            1517

her cross-examination with respect to the aforesaid aspect, has
said :
                ^^ckcj vo/k ds {ks= esa vk;k Fkk ,slk eSaus i<+k gS ysfdu v;ks/;k
         vk;k ;k ugha eSa ugha crk ldrh gwWaA** ¼ist 24½
                "Babur had come in the region of Awadh, I have
         read so, but in fact, came to Ayodhya or not, I cannot
         say."(E.T.C.)
                ^^ysfdu crkS j bfrgkldkj eSa crk ldrh gWaw fd 16oha 'krkCnh
         esa ckcj us v;ks/;k esa ckcjh efLtn cuokbZA** ¼ist 103½
                 "but as a historian I can tell that in 16th century
         Babar        got      constructed          Babari     Mosque         in
         Ayodhya."(E.T.C.)
                ^^eS u s ckcjh efLtn ds ckjs esa             dq N ugh a i<+k
         fo'k s" k :i ls ugh a i<+k blfy, eS a ugh a crk ldrh fd
         ckcjh efLtn dc vfLrRo es a vk;hA eSa ;g Hkh ugha crk ldrh
         fd ckcjh efLtn ds vfLrRo esa vkus ds igys ml LFkku ij D;k
         FkkA**¼ist 105½
                " I have read nothing about Babari Mosque, I did
         not study thoroughly, therefore, I cannot say as to when
         Babari Mosque came into existence. I cannot say as to
         what was there at the site before coming into existence of
         Babari Mosque." (E.T.C.)
                ^^eSaus ckcjukek ugha i<+k gSA** ¼ist 121½
                "I have not read Babarnama." (E.T.C.)
                ^^ ;g Bhd gS fd eS a iz k phu bfrgkl dh fo'k s" kK gw aA ;g
         Hkh Bhd gS fd eSa bl vnkyr esa iz k phu bfrgkl ds fo'k s" kK
         ds :i esa xokgh nsu s vkbZ gawA ** ¼ist 122&123½
                "This is correct that I am expert in Ancient History.
         It is also correct that I have come to this Court to tender
         evidence as specialist in Ancient History." (E.T.C.)
1364.           PW 18 admits that she has come to depose her
                                                                   1518

statement as Expert Historian being specialist in Ancient
History (page 122-123). However, while on one hand she claims
that the disputed building was constructed in 16th century by
Babar at Ayodhya called Babari mosque and this statement she
is making as a historian but simultaneously on page 105 she said
that she has not read anything about Babari mosque and did not
study thoroughly and, therefore, cannot say as to when Babari
mosque came into existence. On page 121, she also admits of
having not read "Baburnama" at all.
1365.          Shrin Musvi-P.W.20 in her examination with
respect to the aforesaid aspect has said:
        (Examination-in-chief)
               "There was an inscription at Babari Masjid
        divided in three parts and its some part were printed in
        Beveridge's Babar-Nama. The entire inscription is
        published in 1965, Epigraphia Indica published by A.S.I. It
        is in Persian language and Nask-script. It mentions that
        Mir Baqi got the mosque constructed in 1528-29 AD on the
        orders and intention of Babar. The date of his construction
        is found from its script by numerical calculation. (page2-3)
               Buchanan visited Ayodhya in 1810 and described
        about the same in his accounts. He has said that it is
        alleged that Aurangzeb demolished a temple in Ram Kot
        and constructed a mosque but he said that the mosque has
        an inscription of the period of Babar, therefore, the
        aforesaid view is ill founded." (page-4)
        (Cross-examination)
               ^^;g Bhd gS fd ckcj us ehjckdh dks vo/k dk dek.Mj fu;qDr
        fd;k FkkA** ¼ist 29½
               "It is true that Babar had appointed Mir Baqi
                                                                      1519

Commander of Awadh." (E.T.C.)
       ^^ckcj dk v;ks/;k tkus dk jsQzsUlst gS] exj ,slk mlds eseksvkj
esa ugha gSA ;g jsQzsUlst nwljs ledkyhu vkSj ledkyhu ds ikl ds
lzksrksa esa i<+k gSA lEHkor% eSaus ;g ckr [okUnehj dh fy[kh gqbZ fdrkc esa
is ;kn ugha
gSA** ¼ist 30&31½
       "References of visit of Babar to Ayodhya are there
but it is not so in his Memoir. I have read these references
in other contemporary and nearby sources. Perhaps I have
read this in the book written by Khwand Mir. He was
contemporary to Babar. He was resident of Central Asia
and an officer of Babar. His book is in Persian script. I
know Persian. I do not remember presently any other near
contemporary source." (E.T.C.)
       ^^ckcjukek esa eq>s tgkWa rd ;kn gS] dgha Hkh efLtn cuokus dk
ftdz ugha gSA vt[kqn dgk fd rc ml tekus esa efLtn cuokuk dkWeu
izSfDVl FkhA** ¼ist&31½
       "In Babarnama so far as I remember, there is no
reference anywhere of of getting any Mosque constructed.
Then of her own, she said that those days, to get mosque
constructed was a common practice." (E.T.C.)
       ^^ckcj v;ks/;k dc vk;k Fkk] eSa ugha crk ldrh] D;ksafd
ckcjukek esa mlds ;gkWa vkus dk dksbZ ftdz ugha gSA** ¼ist&33½
       "I cannot say as to when Babar came to Ayodhya
because in Babarnama there is no reference of his visit
there." (E.T.C.)
        ^^;g Bhd gS fd lkuh ds eryc nh vnj ;kfu nwljk gSA ;g
Bhd gS fd fookfnr <kaps ds Åij yxs gq, bUldzsi'ku ij ehj ckdh ds
fy;s ,d VkbZfVy vkflQs lkuh fy[kk x;k ftls cuthZ us ^blQgkuh^
                                                                     1520

i<+k FkkA 'kk;n cuthZ us viuh iqLrd ^ckcjl fjyhtu^ esa ,slk
fy[kkA** ¼ist 58½
        "It is true that 'Sani' means "the other" or 'second'. It
is true that in inscription on disputed structure, the title for
Mir Baqi was written as 'Asife sani' which was read as
Isfehani by Banerji. Perhaps Banerji has written this in his
book Babar's religion." (E.T.C.)
        ^^tSlk eSaus Åij c;ku fn;k gS fookfnr LFky ij yxs f'kykys[k
dks lu~ 75 ls 1980 ds chp esa i s dk sb Z tkudkjh ugh a FkhA^^ ¼ist 121½
"It is true that I had no knowledge of the epigraphs on
the disputed sites before 1975." (E.T.C.)
        ^^eSaus vk sj htuy bUlfdz i 'ku dh Qk sV k s ,si hxz k fQ;k
bf.M;k 1964&65 es a ns[ kk gS A ** ¼ist 121½
        "She had seen the photograph of the original
inscription in Epigraphia Indica in 1964-65." (E.T.C.)
        ^^ml fookfnr LFky ij rhu f'kykys[k yxs gq, Fks bl le; iwjh
rkSj ls ;kn ugha gS fd og rhuksa f'kykys[k fdu fdu LFkkuksa ij yxs Fks
oks Qkjlh Hkk"kk esa FksA** ¼ist 122½
"Three inscriptions were installed on the disputed site.
Presently I do not fully remember at which places those
three inscriptions written in Persian language were
                                                                 1521

installed." (E.T.C.)
       ^^mlesa tks [kkl ckr fy[kh gS og ;g gS fd mls ckcj ds vkns'k
ij ehjckdh us cuok;k vkSj ^^[kSj ckdh** 'kCn ls blds cuok;s tkus dh
rkjh[k fudyrh gSA** ¼ist 122½
       "It is particularly mentioned          therein that it was
installed by Meer Baqi under the orders of Babar and the
date of its installation is inferred by the word "Khair
Baki." (E.T.C.)
       ^^esj s vuq l kj loZ i z F ke fookfnr <k ap s dk fuekZ . k 1528
esa gq v k gk sx kA^* ¼ist 126&127½
       "In my opinion, first of all, the disputed structure
may have been constructed in 1528." (E.T.C.)
       ^^;g dguk fcydqy xyr gksxk fd fookfnr <kWaps dk fuekZ.k
1501 esa fd;k x;k gksA** ¼ist 127½
       "It will be totally wrong to say that the disputed
structure may have been constructed in 1501." (E.T.C.)
       ^^isij ua0 2@15&d&1 ij vafdr 18&12&61 dh frfFk dh vksj
fnyk;k ftls is ;kn ugha gSA eSa ;g ugha crk ldrh fd
ckdh lxkoy ehjckdh dk gh uke Fkk fQj dgk fd lxkoy dksbZ uke
ugha gksrk Fkk dksbZ iksLV gksrh Fkh lxkoy ,d vkfQl Fkk mldh D;k
M;wVh vkSj ,DtSDV uspj D;k D;k Fks eq>s ugha ekyweA** ¼ist 130½
       "Baqi Tashkandi is the name of Mir Baqi, Babur
himself has used this name in Baburnama. I have not heard
the name of Baqi Sagawal, then said, I do not remember
so, I can not tell as to whether Baqi Sagawal was the name
of Mir Baqi, then said, Sagawal was not a name but was a
post, Sagawal was an office. I do not know what was his
duty and exact nature." (E.T.C.)
       ^^;g dguk xyr gS fd tks bafLdzI'ku fookfnr <kaps ij yxs gq,
Fks oks 1934 ds naxs ds ckn yxk fn;s x;s Fks]cfYd ;g lgh gS fd og
igys ls yxs gq, Fks ftldk ftdz cqdkuu us lu 1810 ds vius
,dkm.V esa fd;k gSA dqy feykdj rhu bUlfdzI'ku fookfnr <kaps ij
yxs gq, FksA rhuksa bUlfdzI'ku vyx&vyx vYQkt esa Fks ijUrq muds
dUVsUV ;kuh mudk eryc dekscs'k ,d FkkA ;kuh rhuksa bUlfdzI'ku ,d
                                                                    1523

gh le; ds yxs gq, Fks] tks lu 1580 ds igys ds FksA ,ihxzkfQDl dh
LVMh ds vuqlkj rhuksa bUlfdzI'ku dh fyfi 1580 ds igys dh gS A ;g
eS au s *,ihxz k fQ;k bf.Mdk oS Y ;we 1964&65 es a i<k gS fd
rhuk s a bUlfdz I 'ku 1528 esa gh yxs Fk sA ,sihxzkfQ;k bf.Mdk
vkfdZ;ksykftdy foHkkx dk ,d tjuy gS vkSj dkQh fo'oluh; tjuy
gSA^^ ¼ist 136&137½
       "It is wrong to say that the inscriptions which stood
at the disputed structure were installed after the 1934 riot.
However, it is true that they were installed from before, as
Buchanan has mentioned in his account of 1810 AD. In all,
there are three inscriptions on the disputed structure. They
had different wordings but their meaning was almost same.
That is to say, the three inscriptions were installed at one
and the same time. They all belong to pre-1580 period. As
per the study of epigraphics, the script of all the three
inscriptions preceded 1580. I have read in Epigraphia
Indica Vol 1964-65 that the inscriptions was installed in
1528 itself. Epigraphia Indica is a Journal from the
Archaeological        Deptt      and      it    is    fairly     worth
relying."(E.T.C.)
       ^^eSaus cuthZ dh iq L rd ckcj ,UM fn fgUnwt es a Hkh nk s
bUlfdz I 'ku ds ckj s esa is vc ;kn ughaA
        iz'u& D;k ml ij vkxs ;g Hkh fy[kk gqvk gS ^^fcuk dcZ bZ
eqgcRrs dqfnf'k;kW*
        mRrj& ;g Bhd gS] ,slk Hkh fy[kk gqvk FkkA vkt [kqn dgk fd
Qkjlh esa iwjh rkjh[k fgLV~h fy[kh gqbZ FkhA** ¼ist 120½
        "This mosque had a stone detailing that this
mosque was built by Babur through Mir Baqi. (Himself
stated) It had written on it 'Emperor Babur built it.' Apart
from this, it had something more written on it which I
cannot recall at present.
        Question:- Has it something further written which
runs as 'bina karb ei muhabatte kudishian' ?
        Answer:- It is true that it was so written. (Stated on
his     own)          The   entire   history      was      written     in
Persian."(E.T.C.)
        ^^ckcj dh reke fdrkcksa esa bldk ftdz vkrk gS vkSj vke yksxksa
esa ppkZ gS fd ;g efLtn ckcj us cuokbZ FkhA** ¼ist 120½
        "It finds mention in many books of Babur and it is a
public talk that Babur built this mosque." (E.T.C.)
        ^^bl efLtn ij tks fy[kk gqvk Fkk fd ;g Qfj'rksa ds mrjus dh
txg gS] og ehjckadh us fy[kok;k FkkA** ¼ist 136½
        "It was Mir Baqi who had got it engraved on this
mosque that it is a descending place of angels." (E.T.C.)
        ^^esjk dguk gS fd 1528 ls ;g ges'kkk efLtn jgk gS]**¼ist 164½
                                                                                1528

               "I have to say that it has always been a mosque since
        1528," (E.T.C.)
               ^^ckcj v;ks?;k ugha vk;s ] v;ks/;k ds lkFk yxrh lj;w ds mRrj
        dh rjQ ikWp & nl dksl ij ckcj us dksbZ Msjk ugha yxk;k A ;g
        dguk xyr gsS fd og gQ~rsa &nl jkst dk d;ke djus ds fy, ogkW
        vk;k djrs FksA** ¼ist 179½
               "Babur had not come to Ayodhya and he had not
        camped five-ten kosas north of the river Saryu flowing
        along Ayodhya. It is wrong to say that he used to come
        there to do work lasting a week or ten days." (E.T.C.)
               ^^;g xyr gS fd ckcj'kkg us ehjckWdh dks efLtn cukus ds fy,
        dksbZ gqDe ugha fn;k FkkA** ¼ist 180½
               "It is wrong that emperor Babar had given no
        command to Mir Baqi for constructing a mosque." (E.T.C.)
1370.          P.W.2 Haji Mahboob Ahmad has said:
               ^^'kga'kkg ckcj v;ks/;k dHkh ugha vk,A ----ehjckdh ckcj dk
        lsukifr FkkA** ¼ist 27½
               "Emperor Babur did not come to Ayodhya. .... Mir
        Baqi was Babur's army chief." (E.T.C.)
               ^^ckcj dh dk sb Z yM+k bZ v;k s/ ;k esa ugh a gq ; hA vkSj
        blfy, ,slk dksbZ loky iSnk ugha gksrk fd bl efLtn ds vkl&ikl
        dh dczsa mu yksxksa dh gksa tks ckcj ls yM+kbZ esa ekjs x, gksaA** ¼ist 76½
               "No battle with Babur had taken place in Ayodhya
        and hence there is no question that the graves located in
        the vicinity of this mosque may be of those persons who
        may     have      have     been      killed    in    the    battle     with
        Babur."(E.T.C.)
               ^^efLtn es a iRFkj t:j yx s gq , Fk s] ,d iRFkj ij dqN
        fy[kk gqvk Hkh Fkk] ysfdu eq>s ekywe ugha fd D;k dqN fy[kk gqvk
        FkkA**¼ist 107½
               "Stones had certainly been used in the mosque;
                                                                                1529

        one stone had something written on it but I cannot tell what
        was written on it." (E.T.C.)
1371.          P.W.3 Farooq Ahmad in his cross examination has
said:
               ^^ckcj fgUnqLrku dk ckn'kkg FkkA ckcj ds othj ehjckdh us ;g
        efLtn cuokbZ FkhA** ¼ist 16½
               "Babar was emperor of India. This mosque was built
        by Babar's Wazir Mir Baqi." (E.T.C)
               ^^v;ks/;k esa lcls iqjkuh efLtn ;gh Fkh ftldks ckcjh efLtn
        dgk tkrk gSA ckcjh efLtn ls iqjkuh vkSj dksbZ efLtn v;ks/;k esa ugha
        gSA** ¼ist 18½
               "It was the oldest mosque in Ayodhya, which was
        called Babri Masjid. There is no other mosque older than
        Babri Masjid in Ayodhya." (E.T.C)
1372.          P.W.4 Mohd. Yaseen also in his cross examination
said:
               ^^eqrnkfo;k efLtn dks 'kga'kkg ckcj us cuok;k Fkk blfy, mls
        ckcjh efLtn dgk tkrk FkkA ckcj us [kqn vkdj efLtn ugha cuok;h
        mldk gqDe Fkk mlds othj us cuok;h FkhA ,slh ckr rokjh[kksa esa fy[kh
        gksxhA eSaus ,slh ckr [kqn bfrgkl dh fdrkcksa esa ugha is bl tk;nkn ds ckcr ekywe gqvk
        Fkk fd ;g dc vkSj fdlus cuokbZ FkhA eSa ugha crk ikÅWaxk fd cqfu;knh
        rkSj ij bl tk;nkn dk fdruk jdck FkkA** ¼ist 9½
               "Between 1957 and 1965 I came to know as to when
        this property was erected and by whom. I am not in the
        position to tell how much area this property basically
        had."(E.T.C.)
               ^^vt[kqn dgk fd esjh ;kn'r detksj gS ¼fQj dgk fd lu~
        1987 ls 'kq: gqbZ gSA½ ;g Bhd gS fd vc vkye ;g gS fd oktodkr eSa
        vius yM+dksa ds uke Hkh Hkwy tkrk gwWaA** ¼ist 33½
               "(Stated on his own) my memory is weak. I began to
        develop weakness in my memory from 1986. (Again stated
        that it has started from 1987). It is true that condition has
        now become so serious that I forget even the name of my
        sons." (E.T.C.)
               ^^eSaus ckcj ukek ugha i<+kA tks fgLV~h dh fdrkcsa geus vius dkslZ
        esa is ckcjh efLtn ds ckjs esa tkudkjh izkIr gks
                                                                           1531

        x;hA** ¼ist 55½
              "I did not read 'Baburnama'. In the history books
        which I studied as a part of my course, I did not come
        across the mention of the mosque anywhere. As I hail from
        that very place, I came to have knowledge of the Babri
        mosque." (E.T.C.)
              ^^efLtn ds es ac j ij ,d iRFkj yxk gq v k Fkk ftl ij
        ,slk rgjhj Fkk fd ckcj ds gqDe ij bldh rkehj ehjckdh us djk;h
        FkhA - - ;g iRFkj es ac j ij yxh gq ; h FkhA             - - ;g rgjhj
        Qkjlh esa FkhA eSa dqn gn rd Qkjlh i<+k gqvk gwWaA ml rgjhj dks eSaus
        i<+k FkkA fefMy Dykl ds ckn eSaus vjfc;k dkyst esa nkf[kyk fy;k Fkk
        vkSj ogka dqN gn rd Qkjlh i<+h FkhA** ¼ist 62½
              "On the member of the mosque was                      placed a
        stone with an inscription that it was built by Mir Baqi at
        the diktat of Babur. . . This stone was fixed to the
        member. . . This inscription was in Persian. I have read
        Persian to some extent. I read the inscription. After doing
        my middle, I sought admission in Arabia College and
        studied Persian to some extent there." (E.T.C.)
1374.         PW 10, Mohammad Idris has said:
              ^^tgkWa rd eSa tku ik;k gwWa] fdrkcsa i<+dj vkSj yksxksa ls lqudj]
        og ;g gS fd bl efLtn dh rkehj ehjckdh us djokbZ FkhA D;ksafd
        bldk ftdz v[kckjksa esa vkrk jgk gS] blfy, eSa dg ldrk gwWa fd ;g
        efLtn lu~ 1528 es a cuokbZ xbZ FkhA** ¼ist 32½
              "As far as I have come to know by reading the books
        and by hearing people that this mosque had been built by
        Mir Baqi. Since this fact has continued to be published in
        newspapers, I can say that this mosque was built in
        1528."(E.T.C)
              ^^ckcj ds fliglykj ds ckjs esa rks eSa ugha tkurk ysfdu eSaus
        ehjckdh dk uke t:j lquk gSA ;g ml tekus ds ;kuh 1525&26 ds
                                                                     1532

vklikl ds ,d cgqr cM+s vkneh FksA oks ,d QkSth Fks mudk
rk:QZ ,d QkSth dh gSfl;r ls gSA oks eqlyeku Fks bLyke ds gkeh FksA
oks eqlyeku Fks blfy, tkfgj gS fd oks Hkh cqrijLrh ds f[kykQ
FksA**¼ist 49½
        "I do not know about the commanders of Babar, but
have certainly heard the name of Mir Baqi. He was a very
big personality of that time i.e. around 1525-26. He was a
soldier and he is known as a soldier. He was Muslim and
follower of Islam. Since he was Muslim, naturally he was
against idolatry." (E.T.C)
        ^^ckcj us fgUnqLrku esa fdlh efLtn dks ugha rksM+kA fdlh efUnj
dks Hkh ugha rksM+kA** ¼ist 90½
        "Babar did not demolish any mosque in India. Did
not demolish any temple as well." (E.T.C)
        ^^fdlh Hkh rkjh[k dh fdrkc esa eSaus ,slk ugha i<+k fd ckcj dHkh
v;ksa/;k vk;k gksA og vo/k izkUr ds gkf'k;s ls gksdj fcgkj t:j x;k
Fkk] - - tgkWa rd ehjckdh dk loky gS] og v;ks/;k esa t:j vk;k vkSj
eqLrfdy rkSj ij ;gkWa jgkA - - fdrkcksa esa eSaus is ;g Bhd ls ;kn ugha gS fd eSaus fdl iqLrd esa igyh ckj
        ckcjh efLtn dk uke i<+k gksA ;g Hkh ;kn ugha fd eSaus dc bls igyh
        ckj i<+k FkkA** ¼ist 46½
               "I do not properly remember in which book I read
        the name of Babri mosque for the first time. I also do not
        remember when I read it for the first time." (E.T.C.)
               ^^ckcjh efLtn ds ckjs esa eSaus is eqrbZ;u rkSj ls fdlh efLtn
                                                                           1534

        dks ftls ckcj us cuokbZ] ;kn ugha vFkkZr bl efLtn ;kfu dh ckcjh
        efLtn ds vykokA ;g Bhd gS fd ckcjh efLtn fookfnr LFky ij
        ehjckdh us cuok;k FkkA ij ckcj ds gqDe lsA ckcjh efLtn ij og
        dRck yxk gq v k Fkk mles a ;g ckr fy[kh gq b Z Fkh fd ;g
        efLtn ehjckdh us ckcj ds gqDe ls cuokbZ gSA og dRck eSaus [kqn ugha
        ns[kk ij mijksDr fdrkc ckcjh efLtn esa mldk gokyk gS dRcs ds
        vklkj mlesa fNis gq, gSA ;g Bhd gS fd mlh fdrkc ds vk/kkj ij vkSj
        nwljs vkVhZdyl ds fcuk ij eSa ,slk dg jgk gwWa fd ,sl k dRck ogk a
        yxk gq v k gS A ** ¼ist 76½
               "I have read about Babri mosque. Babar had built
        many other mosques in India besides the one at the
        disputed site, whose references are found in history. It is
        not that all the mosques built by Babar are known as Babri
        mosque. I definitely do not remember any mosque built by
        Babar i.e. besides this mosque or the Babri mosque. It is
        true that Mir Baqi had built Babri mosque at the disputed
        site, but on the command of Babar. An inscription was
        fixed at the Babri mosque in which it was mentioned that
        this mosque had been built by Mir Baqi on command of
        Babar. I did not see this inscription myself, but the contents
        of the inscription have been published in the aforesaid
        book 'Babri Masjid'. It is true that on basis of said book
        and other articles, I am saying that such inscription had
        been fixed over there." (E.T.C.)
1377.          PW 23, Mohd. Qasim Ansari has said:
               ^^Qkjlh esa 'kk;n dqN vUnj fy[kk FkkA ij eSa mls i<+ ugha
        ldkA vjch esa vYykg] eksgEen o dqjku dh dqN vk;rs s ;kn ugha gS fd fdruh txg dqjku dh vk;rsa o
        vYykg] eksgEen fy[kk FkkA tks vjch esa fy[kk gqvk Fkk og lc [kqnk
        gqvk fy[kk FkkA ;g vk;rsa iRFkjksa ij Hkh fy[kh Fkh vkSj nhokjksa ij Hkh
        fy[kh FkhaA ,d ,d txg ij nks&nks] rhu&rhu ykbZusa fy[kh gqbZ
                                                                        1535

        FkhaA ;g fy[kkoVsa 15&20 fQV dh ÅWapkbZ ij fy[kh gqbZ FkhaA dgha dgha
        ij vkB nl fQV dh uhpkbZ ij fy[kh Fkh vkSj blls Hkh uhps fy[kh
        FkhaA ---** ¼ist 72&73½
               "There was something written in Persian outside.
        But I could not read that. The words 'Allah' and
        'Muhammad', and some Ayats (verses) of the Quran were
        written in Arabic language, inside the structure. I do not
        remember at how many places verses of the Quran and the
        words 'Allah' and 'Muhammad' were written . Whatsoever
        was written in Arabic, was all engraved. These Ayats were
        engraved on stones as well as on walls. 2-3 lines were
        engraved on every place. These engravings were on the
        elevation of 15-20 feet. At certain places these engravings
        were at the depth of 8-10 feet or even at greater depth."
        (E.T.C.)
1378.          PW 26 Kalbe Jawwad in his cross examination has
said as under:
               ^^tgka rd eq>s [;ky gS ckcjh efLtn ckcj ds xoZ u j
        ehjckdh us 1528 esa cuokbZ FkhA ---ckcjh efLtn vktdy ftls
        v;ks/;k dgk tkrk gS ogka gSA igys ;g ekywe gqvk Fkk fd igys ;g
        ohjku txg Fkh ckn es a vkckn gq b Z A ** ¼ist 41½
               "To the best of my memory, the Babri mosque was
        built in 1528 by Mir Baqi, Governor of Babar. ... Babri
        mosque exists at the place which, these days, is called
        Ayodhya. It so transpired that earlier this was a deserted
        place and was inhabited subsequently." (E.T.C.)
               ^^ 1528 ds iwoZ fookfnr LFky ,d [kkyh tehu Fkh vkS j
        ftl ij ;g efLtn rkehj dh x;hA * ¼ist 42½
               "Prior to 1528, there was vacant land at the
        disputed site over which the mosque was built." (E.T.C.)
               "fookfnr LFky ds ckjs esa tks iqLrd eSaus ^^ckcjh efLtn** uked
                                                                    1536

i<+h gS vkSj dksbZ iqLrd esa ugha i<+k gS] dsoy v[kckjkr vkSj ys[kksa esa
i<+k gSA bl fo'k; ij fy[kh ugha xbZ gSaA" ¼ist 51½
       "I have read only the book titled 'Babri Masjid' as
regards the disputed site and have not read any other book.
I have only read newspapers and articles. I have no special
study on this topic, because not much books have been
written on this topic." (E.T.C.)
       ^^eSa lqudj vkSj i<+dj ckcjh efLtn dks ckcjh efLtn dgrk
gwWaA - - - eSaus vyx ls bl ckr ij dksbZ fjlpZ ugha fd;k fd fookfnr
s flQZ bruk ekywe gS fd ckcj dHkh v;ks/;k ugha vk;kA
fygktk muds geyk djds [kqn thrus dk loky ugha mBrkA ;g
LVSfCy'M gS fd efLtn ehj ckdh us cuok;h u fd ckcj usA** ¼ist 87½
       "I know only this much that Babar never came to
Ayodhya. Hence, the question of he being victorious does
not arise. It is established that the mosque was built by Mir
Baqi and not Babar." (E.T.C.)
       "ckcjh efLtn ds ckcjh efLtn gksus dk bYe eq>s dqN is lckgqn~nhu vCnqy
jgeku dh fdrkc ckcjh efLtn vkSj dqN ys[kksa ls gqvkA --- lckgqn~nhu
lkgc ,d vkfye FksA eq>s ;g ugha ekywe mudk Lis'kykbts'ku dkgs esa
FkkA** ¼ist 88½
       "I gathered the knowledge of the Babri mosque being
Babri mosque from certain studies and few 'Matebar'
witnesses. I gathered this knowledge from Sabahuddin
Abdul Rehman's book                 Babri Masjid and certain
articles .... Sabahuddin was a scholar. I do not know his
                                                                         1537

        topic of specialization." (E.T.C.)
1379.          PW 29 Dr. Jaya Menon though had appeared to
depose her statement against A.S.I. report dated 22nd August
2003 but in her cross-examination she has also made statement
about the period of construction of disputed building and also
the person according to her who had constructed it. She said:
               "I do not know the total number of mosques
        constructed in Ayodhya during 15th and 16th century but I
        know that Babri Masjid was constructed during 16th
        Century." (Page 146-147)
               "I know that Babri Mosque was erected in the year
        1528 by Mir Baqi. . ... I do not exactly know as to who Mir
        Baqi was, but as I think, he was a commander possibly in
        Babar's army." ( Page 154-155)
               "I don't know whether Babar had come to Ayodhya
        and Faizabad. I have heard about Meer Baqi who is
        supposed to have built Babri Masjid." (Page 219-220)
1380.          PW 30 Dr. R.C. Thakran in his cross examination
said:
               ^^lu~ 1528 bZ0 esa v;ks/;k QStkckn dk :yj dkSu Fkk] bldh
        tkudkjh eq>s ugha gSA** ¼ist 193½
               "I do not know as to who was the ruler of Ayodhya,
        Faizabad in 1528." (E.T.C.)
               ^^fookfnr Hkou ckcj }kjk cuokbZ xbZ efLtn gSA** ¼ist 194½
               "The disputed building is a mosque built by
        Babur."(E.T.C.)
               ^^bl ckjs esa fd v;ks/;k esa ckcj us efLtn cuok;k Fkk] eSaus
        lekpkj&i=ks rFkk if=dkvksa esa i<+k FkkA eSa ,d bfrgklK ds :i
        esa v[k+ckjksa vkSj if=dkvksa dks Kku dk lzksr ekurk gwWaA Lo;a dgk fd
        bu lzksrksa ls izkIr ,sfrgkfld tkudkjh lR;kfir gS ;k ugha bldks
        bfrgkldkj v/;;u o fo'ys"k.k ds }kjk r; djrs gSaA v[k+ckjksa vkSj
                                                                               1538

        if=dkvksa ls izkIr bl tkudkjh dk lR;kiu eSaus fdlh iqLrd ls ugha
        fd;k] --- bu ys[kksa o eksuksxzkQ+ksa dh vkFksaVhflVh dks eSaus lR;kfir ugha
        fd;kA Lo;a dgk fd igys gh bfrgkldkjksa ds }kjk ;g ckr lR;kfir
        dh tk pqdh FkhA bl lEcU/k esa fdlh bfrgkldkj dh iqLrd dks eSaus
        ugha i<+k gSA** ¼ist 195½
               "In news-papers and magazines, I read that Babur
        had built a mosque in Ayodhya. As a historian, I consider
        news-papers and magazines to be a source of knowledge.
        (Himself stated) Historians through study and analysis
        determine whether historical information obtained from
        these sources is true or not. I did not through any book
        verify the veracity of this information, obtained from the
        news-papers and magazines. ...                 I did not certify the
        authenticity of these articles and monographs. (Himself
        stated) This fact had already been certified by the
        historians. I have not read a book of any historian in this
        regard." (E.T.C.)
               ^^esjs fopkj ls fookfnr Hkou lu~ 1528 bZ L oh ds yxHkx
        cuk gk sx kA ** ¼ist 358½
               "In my opinion, the disputed structure may have
        been built around 1528 AD." (E.T.C.)
1381.          PW 32 Dr. Supriya Verma in his cross examination
said:
        "The inscriptions found at the disputed site of excavation
        refer that Meer Baqi, the commander of Babar has built
        this mosque as I remember now." (Page 34)
1382.          D.W.2/1-1 Sri Rajendra Singh in his cross
examination has said:
               ^^lu~ 1528 es a fookfnr LFky ij Hkxoku jke ds eafnj dks
        fxjkus ds ckn ,d <kW ap s dk fuekZ . k fd;k x;k Fkk] ftls dqN
        yksx ckcjh efLtn dgrs gSaA** ¼ist 26½
                                                                    1539

       "In the year 1528, a structure had been built at the
disputed site after demolishing the temple of Lord Rama,
which is called Babri mosque by few persons." (E.T.C.)
       ^^eSaus viuh iqLrd esa ^^bihxzkfQ;k bafMdk vjsfcd ,.M ijf'k;u
LiyhesaV 1965** dk gokyk fn;k gS] ftls eSaus i<+k gSa ftl ,ihxzkfQ;k
bafMdk dks eSaus is bl laca/k esa
dqN&dqN Lej.k vk jgk gS fd ml LFkku ij iM+ko Mkyus ds ckn ckcj
us vius dqN lkfFk;ksa dks v;ks/;k Hkstk] blds ckn bczkfge yksnh }kjk
fu;qDr xouZj 'ks[k ck;thn v;ks/;k NksM+dj Hkkx x;kA ck;thn ds
v;ks/;k NksM+dj Hkkxus dh ;g ?kVuk 1527&1528 bZ0 esa gqbZ] tks 930
fgtjh ds rqY; gSA blesa dksbZ lUnsg ugha gS fd bl ?kVuk ds ckn ds
dbZ eghuksa dh ?kVukvksa dk fooj.k ckcjukesa esa miyC/k ugha gSA 28 ekpZ]
1528 ds ckn ckcjukek esa 2 vizSy] 1528 dh ?kVuk dk fooj.k feyrk
gSA mlds ckn dk fooj.k gks ldrk gS fd 18 flrEcj] 1528 ls feyrk
gksA - - - - - -25&26 flrEcj] 1528 esa ckcj Xokfy;j mjok ?kkVh esa
mrjk Fkka mjok ?kkVh ds iwoZ og cgqr ls 'kgjksa ls gksdj xqt+js Fks] gks
ldrk gS fd blds iwoZ og vkxjk ls gksdj xqtjs gksaA Lo;a dgk fd
ckcjukek esa bl laca/k esa tkudkjh fey ldrh gSA** ¼ist 79&81½
                                                            1540

       "By the time Babar went to Ayodhya, he had
defeated Rana Sanga. It is possible that when Babar went
towards Ayodhya, it fell under Oudh and its Governor may
have been appointed by Ibrahim Lodi. When Babar had
gone towards Ayodhya, he had not gone to Ayodhya and
instead had halted few kose (distance of two miles) away
from Ayodhya along the banks of Ghaghra river. I am able
to recollect a bit that after halting at that place, Babar had
sent few of his associates to Ayodhya due to which Sheikh
Baijeed, the Governor appointed by Ibrahim Lodi, fled
away from Ayodhya. This fleeing incident of Baijeed
occurred around 1527-1528 AD, which is equivalent to 930
Hizri era. There is no doubt that details of incidents
occurring many months after this incident, are not
available in the Babarnama. After 28th March, 1528, the
next detail contained in Babarnama is of 2nd April, 1528. It
is possible that the next details commence from 18th
September, 1528. . . . . . . . . On 25-26th September, 1528
Babar had been to Urva valley in Gwalior and before
reaching Urva valley, he had passed through many cities.
It is possible that he may have passed through Agra. (The
witness) stated on his own that information in this behalf
can be had from Babarnama." (E.T.C.)
       ^^Lo;a dgk fd igyh ckj v;ks/;k dh rjQ vkus ds ckn og
Xokfy;j dh rjQ pyk x;k Fkk] ogka ls ykSVdj iqu% ij tc og
v;ks/;k dh rjQ x;k] tks mDr izLrj dh nwljh rFkk rhljh ykbu esa
crk;k x;k gSA tgka rd eq>s Lej.k gS] ;g ckr flrEcj 1528 ds ckn
dh gSA nwljh ckj tc ckcj v;ks/;k dh rjQ x;k Fkk] rc Hkh og
v;ks/;k ds vUnj ugha x;k FkkA v;ks/;k ls nl dksl dh nwjh ij mldk
iM+ko FkkA Lo;a dgk fd eSa lUnHkZ ns[kdj gh iwjh ckr crk
ikÅWaxkA**¼ist 82½
                                                                       1541

               "(The witness) stated on his own that at time of his
        first visit to Ayodhya, he had proceeded towards Gwalior,
        from where he returned and went to Ayodhya, which is
        mentioned in second and third line of the said paragraph.
        To the best of my memory, this incident is subsequent to
        September, 1528. On the other occasion as well when
        Babar went towards Ayodhya, he did not enter Ayodhya
        and halted at a distance of 10 kose from Ayodhya. (The
        witness) stated on his own that I would be able to give the
        complete facts only after looking at the reference."
        (E.T.C.)
1383.          D.W.2/1-2 Sri Ram Saran Srivastava in this regard,
has said:
               ^^fjdkMZ ds fglkc ls fookfnr Hkou lu~ 1528 es a cuk
        Fkk] bl izdkj dk yksx dFku djrs gSa rFkk fjdkMZ ls Hkh ;gh lkfcr
        gksrk gSA** ¼ist 27½
               "According to records, the disputed structure was
        built in the year 1528. This is claimed by people and the
        records also prove it." (E.T.C.)
               ^^,sl k crk;k tkrk gS fd fookfnr LFky ij fookfnr
        Hkou lu~ 1528 es a efLtn ds :i esa cuk;k x;k FkkA**
        ¼ist 31½
               "It is said that in the year 1528 AD, the disputed
        structure      was built     at   the   disputed     site    as a
        mosque."(E.T.C.)
               ^^ysfdu fjdkMZ ds vk/kkj ij irk pyrk gS fd lu~ 1528 esa
        ckcj us eafnj rksM+dj efLtn cuokbZ FkhA bfrgkl dh iqLrdksa ls irk
        pyrk gS fd ckcj ogha dgha lehi esa :ds gq, Fks vkSj muds ,ts.V ehj
        ckdh+ us eafnj rksM+dj efLtn cukus dk dke fd;kA** ¼ist 35½
               "But from the records it appears that in the year
        1528 Babar had built the mosque after demolishing the
                                                                  1542

temple. It is gathered from history books that Babar was
staying at a nearby place and his agent Mir Baqi had gone
ahead to demolish the temple and build a mosque."(E.T.C.)
       ^^tgka rd eSaus i<+k gS] ckcj ds lu~ 1528 esa fookfnr LFky ij
igqapus dh ckr ugha feyrh gS vkSj dksbZ vU; ek/;e Hkh ,slk ughsa gS fd
ftlls irk pyrk gks fd ckcj lu~ 1528 esa fookfnr LFky ij x;k
gksA** ¼ist 36½
       "From my studies, no reference is found about Babar
going to the disputed site in the year 1528 and there is no
such source from which it is found that Babar had been to
the disputed site in the year 1528." (E.T.C.)
       ^^fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj mDr efLtn ehj ckd+h us lu~ 1528
esa cuokbZ A ** ¼ist 36½
       "According to records, the above mosque was built
in year 1528 by Mir Baqi." (E.T.C.)
       ^^fookfnr LFky ij yxs f'kyky s[ k o fjdkMZ dk s ns[ kus
ls ;g ekywe gqvk fd ckcj ds gqDe ls muds ,ts.V ehj ckdh us bl
Hkou dk fuekZ.k nso iq:"kksa ¼Qfj'rksa½ ds vkus ds fy, djok;k FkkA
ehjckd+h us ftl efLtn dks cuok;k Fkk] mlesa ehukjsa ugha FkhA**¼ist 37½
       "From perusal of records and inscriptions at the
disputed site, it transpired that under the order of Babar,
his agent Mir Baqi had built this structure for descension
of angels. There were no minarets in the mosque built by
Mir Baqi." (E.T.C.)
       "fookfnr Hkou efLtn ds :i esa lu~ 1528 esa cukbZ x;h"
                                                              ¼ist 39½
       "The disputed structure was built as a mosque in
1528 A.D." (E.T.C.)
       ^^og fookfnr Hkou 1528 esa fufeZr fd;k x;k Fkk A eSaus ;g ckr
QStkckn ds xts+fV;lZ ls i<+dj viuh iqLrd esa fy[kh FkhA** ¼ist 52½
       " The disputed structure was built in 1528. I have
                                                                   1543

written this in my book after reading the gazetteers of
Faizabad." (E.T.C.)
       ^^eSaus viuh iqLrd dkx+t la0 260 lh&1@1 esa fookfnr Hkou
dh if'peh nhokj ij fy[ks f'kykys[k dk mYys[k fd;k gS] tks Qkjlh esa
Fkk vkSj ftlesa bl LFkku dks Q+fj'rksa ds mrjus dk LFkku crk;k x;k
gSA bl dks eSaus dbZ fdrkcksa esa i<+k Fkk vkSj mlh ls viuh fdrkcksa esa
is bl ckjs esa Kku ugha gS fd Q+fj'rksa ds mrjus dh txg dks
efLtn dgk tk ldrk gS ;k ughaA** ¼ist 75½
       "As contained in the inscription, this structure was
                                                                          1544

        built for descension of angels.
               I have no knowledge of the fact whether the place of
        descension of angels can be called mosque or not."
                                                                  (E.T.C.)
               ^^eSaus bl laca/k esa ftruh Hkh iqLrdksa dk v/;;u fd;k gS] mu
        lc esa fy[kk gS fd ckcj us fookfnr Hkou dks efLtn ds :i esa cuok;k
        Fkk] vFkkZr~ ehj ckdh us tks Hkou cuok;k Fkk] og ckcjh efLtn gh
        gSA**¼ist 76½
               "In all those books I have studied in this respect, it is
        written that Babur got the disputed building built as a
        mosque, that is to say, the building which Mir Baqui built,
        is the Babri mosque itself." (E.T.C.)
               ^^esjh ;g tkudkjh fd efUnj dks rksM+dj lu~ 1528 esa fookfnr
        Hkou cuk;k x;k Fkk] fu;qfDr ds iwoZ ls jgh FkhA Nkuchu ds ckn
        mijksDr nksuksa ckrksa dh iqf"V gks xbZA** ¼ist 173½
               "My knowledge of the disputed building being built
        in 1528 by demolishing the temple, preceded my
        appointment. Both of the afore-said things came to be
        substantiated after enquiry." (E.T.C.)
1384.          OPW 9 Dr. T.P. Verma in his cross examination
has said:
               "lu~ 1528 esa v;ks/;k esa ckcjh efLtn cuk;s tkus dk mYys[k
        feyrk gSA ;g ckr eSaus i<+h Hkh gS fd lu~ 1528 esa v;ks/;k esa ckcjh
        efLtn cukbZ xbZA** ¼ist 12½
               "There is a reference of the Babri mosque being built
        at Ayodhya in 1528. I have also read that Babri mosque
        was constructed at Ayodhya in 1528 AD," (E.T.C.)
               ^^iz0& tc ckcjh efLtn cuh] rc D;k vki ogkWa ekStwn Fks\
               m0 th ughaA** ¼ist 12½
               "Question:- Were you present there at the time when
        the Babri mosque was built ?
                                                                     1545

       Answer:- No, Sir." (E.T.C.)
       ^^ckcjh efLtn cukus ds ckn ckcj ds fliglkykj
ehjckdh     rk'kdUnh       us ogkW a ij       rhu f'kyk[k.M+k s a     ij
vfHkys[ k fy[kok;sA ftu rhu f'kyk[k.Mk s a ij ehjckdh us
ogkW a fy[kok;k Fkk] os Qkjlh Hkk"kk es a fy[kok;s Fk sA ftu
f'kyk[k.M+ksa ij ehjckdh us ijf'k;u esa dqN fy[kk;k Fkk] muesa ls ,d
f'kyk[kaM vkf[kjh le; rd ckcjh efLtn ij yxk Fkk] ckdh nks
f'kyk[kaM mlds igys gh dHkh xk;c gks pqds FksA bu f'kykys[kksa dk
fooj.k ,ihxzkfQ;k bafMdk ijf'k;u [kaM esa vuqokn lfgr izdkf'kr gqvk
gS] ftldk mYys[k eSaus viuh iqLrd ^^v;ks/;k dk bfrgkl ,oa iqjkrRo**
esa fd;k gSA - - - - -,ihxzkfQ;k bafMdk ,oa esjh mijksDr iqLrd nksuksa esa
gh mijksDr rhuksa f'kykys[kksa dk o.kZu gSA rhuksa gh f'kykys[k ijf'k;u
Hkk"kk esa fy[ks x;s FksA mu f'kykys[kksa ls ;g izxV gksrk gS fd og
efLtn FkhA** ¼ist 12½
       "After the construction of the Babri mosque, Mir
Baqi Tashkandi, commander of Babur, got three stone-
blocks inscribed there. The inscriptions engraved on the
three stone-blocks at the instance of Mir Baqi, were in
Persian language. Among the stone-blocks which Mir
Baqi had got inscribed in Persian, one stone-block was
fixed to the Babri mosque till the last time, but the
remaining two stone-blocks had disappeared some time
earlier. Accounts of these stone-blocks has been published
with their translation in the Persian part of 'Epigraphia
Indica', which fact I have made mention of in my book
titled 'Ayodhya Ka Itihaas Evam Puratatva'. . The
aforesaid three inscriptions find description both in
'Epigraphia Indica' and the aforesaid book of mine. All the
three inscriptions were written in Persian language. From
these inscriptions it is evident that it was a mosque."
(E.T.C.)
                                                                          1546

        ^^Qfj'rksa ds mrjus dk LFkku**
esjs b.VjfizVs'ku ds vuqlkj bldk vFkZ ;g gksuk pkfg, fd ;gkWa ij
nsorkvksa dk vorkj gqvk FkkA
        nsorkvksa dk vorkj Hkxoku jke ds :i esa gqvk FkkA ;g ckr
ijf'k;u esa fy[kh xbZ FkhA**¼ist 13½
        "The place of descension of angels."
As per my interpretation, it ought to mean that deities
incarnated themselves at this place.
        Deities incarnated in the form of Lord Rama. This
thing was written in Persian." (E.T.C.)
        ^^mijksDr rhuksa f'kykys[kksa esa ls fdlh Hkh f'kykys[k dks eSaus ns[kk
ugha Fkk] muds ckjs esa i<+k FkkA eSaus f'kykys[k ugha i<+k Fkk f'kykys[kksa ds
ckjs esa irk gwWaA ftu iqLrdksa dks eSaus dalYV fd;k Fkk
muesa ;gh fy[kk Fkk fd ;s ijf'k;u Hkk"kk esa fy[ks x, FksA mu iqLrdksa esa
,ihxzkfQ;k bf.Mdk ijf'k;u [k.M felst csofjt }kjk rS;kj
^^ckcjukek** dk vuqokn gSA - - - ,ihxzkfQ;k bf.Mdk** esa ;g fy[kk
gqvk gS fd ;s vfHkys[k ;kuh f'kykys[k ckcj ds gqDe ls ehjckdh us
fy[kok, FksA** ¼ist 14½
        "Almost all the inscriptions have made mention of
Babur's name, blessings for him as also orders for him. The
arrival of Babur did not find mention in any of the
aforesaid inscriptions. I do not at all understand the
Persian language. Whichever books I consulted, said that
these inscriptions were written in the Persian language.
                                                                  1547

Out of those books, 'Epigraphia Indica', Persian part is a
translation of 'Baburnama' scripted by Mrs. Beveridge. . . .
It is written in 'Epigraphia Indica' that Mir Baqi got these
inscriptions prepared at the behest of Babur."(E.T.C.)
       ^^198lh&2@90 yxk;r 198lh&2@99
iz0& D;k ;g mlh ,ihxzkfQ;k bf.Mdk dh izfr gS] ftlds ckjs esa vkius
Åij mYys[k fd;k gS\
mRrj& th gkWaA blh dkxt la[;k& 198lh&2@95 ij mijksDr
f'kykys[kksa ds QksVksxzkQ Nis gSaA dkxt la[;k&198lh&2@96 ij igys
f'kykys[k dk VsDlV ,oa vuqokn Nik gSA nwljs f'kykys[k dk VsDLV ,oa
vuqokn dkxt la[;k &198lh&2@97 ij Nik gS vkSj rhljs f'kykys[k
dk VsDLV ,oa vuqokn dkxt la[;k & 198lh&2@97 ,oa dkxt
la[;k&198&lh&1@98 ij Nik gSA ;s f'kykys[k ckcj ds tekus esa fy[ks
x, gSaA bu f'kykys[kksa ij fgtjh lu~ dh frfFk 935 oka o"kZ fy[kk x;k gS
tks bZLoh lu~ ds vuqlkj 15228&29 iM+rk gSA blhfy, eSa ;g le>rk gwWa
fd ;s f'kykys[k lu~ 1528 esa fy[ks x;s gSaA** ¼ist 14&15½
       "198C- 2/ 90 to 198C-2/99
Question:- Is this a copy of that very 'Epigraphia Indica'
you have referred to above ?
Answer:-      Yes,    Sir.   Photographs        of   the    aforesaid
inscriptions are published on this very paper no. 198 C -
2/95. The text and translation of the first inscription is
published on paper no. 198 C-2/96. Paper no. 198 C-2/97
carries the text and translation of the second inscription
and paper nos. 198 C - 2/97 & 198 C - 1/98 carry the text
and translation of the third inscription. These inscriptions
date back to the reign of Babur. These inscriptions have
935th year of the Hizri calendar written on them which
comes to be 1528 - 29 AD. That is why I have the
impression that these inscriptions were written in 1528."
(E.T.C.)
                                                                 1548

       ^^eSa bl ckr ls rks lger gwWa fd fookfnr Hkou 1528 bZLoh esa
efLtn ds :i esa cuk;k x;k Fkk]**¼ist 255½
       "I do agree that the disputed structure was built a
mosque in 1528 AD," (E.T.C)
       ^^ckcj Lo;a v;ks/;k ugha x;k] cfYd mlds vU; lsukifr;ksa ds
lkFk ckdh 'kxk+koy ¼ehj ckdh csx½ us bl dke dks vatke fn;k] vFkkZr
ckcj ehj ckdh dks vo/k dk pktZ nsdj Xokfy;j dh vksj jokuk gks
x;kA ckcj ds nksckjk v;ks/;k dh rjQ vkus dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha
feyrk gSA ckcjh efLtn rkehj djkus dk okD;k ehjckdh dks vo/k dk
izHkkjh cukdj    ckcj ds Xokfy;j pys tkus ds ckn dh ?kVuk gS]
ijUrq ;g ÄVuk fdrus ckn dh gS] ;g eSa ugha crk ldrk gwWaA bl laca/k
esa ,d ek= vkS j lcls egRoiw. kZ lk{; os rhu f'kyky s[ k gS a]
tk s ckcjh s ;g ugha ekywe gS fd izfl) fczfV'k losZ;j ek.V xksejh ekfVZu
ftUgksaus lu~ 1838 esa viuh iqLrd ^^fgLV~h ,UVhfDoVht Vksiksxzkih
LVSfVfLVDl vkQ bZLV bafM;k okY;we&2** fy[kh gS] os vo/k {ks= esa rSukr
Fks ;k dgha vkSjA ek.V xk se jh ekfVZ u tS l s dbZ losZ ;j Hkkjr
esa mu fnuk s a dbZ LFkkuk s a ij crkS j losZ ;j rS u kr Fk sA               - -
ewy r% fcz f V'k losZ ;j ek.V xk se jh ekfVZ u bfrgkldkj ugh a
Fk s] ijUrq muds }kjk fy[kh iqLrd dks ,sfrgkfld n`f"V ls egRoiw.kZ
ekuk tkrk gSA ek.V xksejh ekfVZu us viuh iqLrd esa bl ckr dk
gokyk fn;k gS fd ckcj us 1528 esa jketUeHkwfe efUnj fxjkdj mlh
LFkku ij efLtn dk fuekZ.k fd;k FkkA - - - - -eSaus vius 'kiFk&i= ds
iSjk&17 esa ckcj }kjk efUnj fxjkdj efLtn fuekZ.k djkus dk c;ku
ek.V     xksejh     ekfVZu      }kjk    fyf[kr     fdrkc         ftlds   mn~?k`r
i`"B&107lh&1@109 ij vk/kkfjr gS vkSj vkt dk c;ku Hkh eSaus blh
fdrkc ds gokys ls fn;k gSA** ¼ist 26&27½
       "The paper nos. 107C-1/109 to 110, mentioned by
me in para-17 of my affidavit, are not the references of the
pages of that book and possibly this paper number has
been mentioned inadvertently. I do not know whether the
famous British surveyor Montgomery Martin, who wrote
the book 'History, Antiquities, Topography, Statistics of
East India Vol.-II' in the year 1838, was posted in Awadh
or elsewhere. In those days, many surveyors like
Montgomery Martin were posted at many places in India
as surveyor. ... The British surveyor Montgomery Martin
was basically not a historian, but the book written by him
is considered important from historical point of view. In
this book of his, Montgomery Martin has referred that in
                                                                       1551

        the yaer 1528 Babar had demolished Ramjanmbhumi
        temple and built a mosque at that very place. ... The
        contention in para-17 of my affidavit regarding demolition
        of temple by Babar and building of mosque in its place, is
        based on the book written by Montgomery Martin, whose
        excerpt is at page 107C-1/109, and my statement of the day
        is also based on that very book." (E.T.C)
1386.       O.P.W.12 Kaushal Kishor Mishra in his cross
examination has said:
               ^^esjh Le`fr vc cgqr vPNh ugha gSA ikap &N% lky ls esjh Le`fr
        detksj gks xbZ gSA*^ ¼ist 114½
               "Now my memory is not very good. My memory has
        weakened for five-six years." (E.T.C.)
               ^^bl eafUnj dks ehj ckdh uke ds ,d lsukifr us rqM+ok;k Fkk
        vkSj efLtn dk fuekZ.k djk;k FkkA ehjckdh ml le; eqxy lezkV
        ckcj ds lsukifr FksA ;g efLtn fdrus lkS lky igys ehjckdh us
        cuok;h bldh tkudkjh esjs firk o ckck th dks Fkh ysfdu eq>s Lej.k
        ugha gSA** ¼ist 118&119½
               "This temple was demolished and a mosque was
        erected in its place by a commander called Mir Baqi. Mir
        Baqi was at that time commander of Emperor Babur. How
        many years ago this mosque had been constructed, was
        known to my father and grandfather; but I do not have any
        recollection of it." (E.T.C.)
1387.      Most of the above witnesses are not experts yet what
discern undoubtedly that everybody's impression and opinion
about the period of construction is based on inscriptions and
nothing else. Therefore, scrutiny and study on inscription
become vital.
1388.       The written material which throws some light on this
aspect consists of Gazetteers (published from time to time);
                                                                 1552

settlement and survey reports; History books and certain other
books pertaining to the disputed site/building though strictly
speaking not written by well known historians but those persons
claim to have collected information on the basis of their own
inquiry or investigation etc. or had acquired knowledge in the
capacity in which they were working or otherwise or due to the
interest   generated   in   the   matter    after   dispute   spread
countrywide. We would place on record what has been said in
such published material and also consider their credibility etc.
simultaneously.
Gazetteers-Settlement/Survey Reports:
1389.       'Gazetteers', mostly published in 19th and 20th
century during the pre-independence period, and, one after
independence, published under the auspices of U.P. Government
and another by the Government of India are the documents
heavily relied in these cases. It is not in dispute that 'Gazetteers'
are not the documents published under some statutory provision.
In order to understand their evidenciary value and authority we
have to first consider what 'Gazetteer' means.
1390.       Learned counsels have placed before us a printout
taken from internet from the site "Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia" under the heading "Gazetteer". It says that a
'gazetteer' is a geographical dictionary or directory, an important
reference for information about places and place names, used in
conjunction with a map or a full Atlas. It geographically
contains information concerning the geographical makeup of a
country, regions or continent as well as the social statistics and
physical features such as mountains, waterways, or roads.
Examples of information provided by gazetteers include the
location of places, dimensions of physical features, population,
                                                             1553

literacy rate, etc. The "Oxford Dictionary" defines the
"gazetteer" as a geographical index or dictionary. It refers to a
document published by British Historian "Laurence Echard" in
1693 bears the title "Gazetteer's or Newman's Interpreter: Being
a Geographical Index". Echard wrote that the title "gazetteers"
was suggested to him by a very eminent person whose name
was not disclosed. The next part was published by Echard in
1704 as "the Gazetteer simply". This is considered to be the
introduction by the word gazetteer into the English language. It
is said that since 18th century the word gazetteer has been used
interchangeably to define either its traditional maning (i.e., a
geographical dictionary or directory) or a daily news paper such
as London Gazetteer. Tracing the history of gazetteer
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia says:
           "Gazetteers of ancient Greece existed since the
     Hellenistic era. The first known gazetteer of China
     appeared by the 1st century, and with the age of print
     media in China by the 9th century, the Chinese gentry
     became invested in producing gazetteers for their local
     areas as a source of information as well as local pride.
     Although existent only in fragments, the geographer
     Stephanus of Byzantium wrote a geographical dictionary in
     the 6th century which influenced later European compilers
     of gazetteers by the 16th century. Modern gazetteers can be
     found in reference sections of most libraries as well as on
     the Web.
           In his journal article "Alexander and the Ganges"
     (1923), the 20th century historian W.W. Tarn calls a list
     and description of satrapies of Alexander's Empire written
     between 324 and 323 BC as an ancient gazetteer. Tarn
                                                       1554

notes that the document is dated no later than June 323
BC, since it features Babylon as not yet partitioned by
Alexander's generals. It was revised by the Greek historian
Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. In the 1st century
BC, Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentioned the chronicle-
type format of the writing of the logographers in the age
before the founder of the Greek historiographic tradition,
Herodotus (i.e. before the 480s BC), saying "they did not
write connected accounts but instead broke them up
according to peoples and cities, treating each separately."
Historian Truesdell S. Brown asserts that what Dionysius'
describes in this quote about the logographers should be
categorized not as a true "history" but rather as a
gazetteer. While discussing the Greek conception of the
river delta in ancient Greek literature, Francis Celoria
notes that both Ptolemy and Pausanias of the 2nd century
AD provided gazetteer information on geographical terms.
      Perhaps predating Greek gazetteers were those made
in ancient Egypt. Although she does not specifically label
the document as a gazetteer, Penelope Wilson (PhD,
Lecturer in the Department of Archaeology at Durham
University) describes an ancient Egyptian papyrus found at
the site of Tanis, Egypt (a city founded during the
Twentieth dynasty of Egypt) which provides the following
for each administrative area of Egypt at the time.
      The Domesday Book initiated by William I of
England in 1086 was a government survey on all the
administrative counties of England; it was used to assess
the properties of farmsteads and landholders in order to
tax them sufficiently. In the survey, numerous English
                                                         1555

castles were listed; scholars debate on exactly how many
were actually referenced in the book. However, the
Domesday Book does detail the fact that out of 3,558
registered houses destroyed in 112 different boroughs
listed, 410 of these destroyed houses were the direct result
of castle construction and expansion. In 1316, the Nomina
Villarum survey was initiated by Edward II of England; it
was essentially a list of all the administrative subdivisions
throughout England which could be utilized by the state in
order to assess how much military troops could be
conscripted and summoned from each region. The
Speculum Britanniae (1596) of the Tudor era English
cartographer and topographer John Norden (1548-1625)
had an alphabetical list of places throughout England with
headings showing their administrative hundreds and
referenced to attached maps. Englishman John Speed's
Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine published in 1611
provided gazetteers for counties throughout England,
which included illustrative maps, short local histories, a
list of administrative hundreds, an index of parishes, and
the coordinates of longitude and latitude for county towns.
Starting in 1662, the Hearth Tax Returns with attached
maps of local areas were compiled by individual parishes
throughout England while a duplicate of their records were
sent to the central government offices of the Exchequer. To
supplement his 'new large Map of England' from 1677, the
English cartographer John Adams compiled the extensive
gazetteer "Index Villaris" in 1680 that had some 24,000
places listed with geographical coordinates coinciding with
the map. The "Geographical Dictionary" of Edmund Bohun
                                                      1556

was published in London in 1688, comprising 806 pages
with some 8,500 entries. In his work, Edmund Bohun
attributed the first known Western geographical dictionary
to geographer Stephanus of Byzantium (fl. 6th century)
while also noting influence in his work from the Thesaurus
Geographicus (1587) by the Belgian cartographer
Abraham Ortelius (1527-1598), but stated that Ortelius'
work dealt largely with ancient geography and not up-to-
date    information.   Only   fragments   of    Stephanus'
geographical work Ethnica (Εθνικά) have survived and
were first examined by the Italian printer Aldus Manutius
in his work of 1502.
       The Italian monk Phillippus Ferrarrius (d. 1626)
published    his   geographical    dictionary    "Epitome
Geographicus in Quattuor Libros Divisum" in the Swiss
city of Zurich in 1605. He divided this work into overhead
topics of cities, rivers, mountains, and lakes and swamps.
All placenames, given in Latin, were arranged in
alphabetical order for each overhead division by
geographic type;. A year after his death, his "Lexicon
Geographicum" was published, which contained more than
9,000 different entries for geographic places. This was an
improvement over Ortelius' work, since it included modern
placenames and places discovered since the time of
Ortelius.
       Pierre Duval (1618-1683), a nephew of the French
cartographer Nicolas Sanson, wrote various geographical
dictionaries. These include a dictionary on the abbeys of
France, a dictionary on ancient sites of the Assyrians,
Persians, Greeks, and Romans with their modern
                                                          1557

equivalent names, and a work published in Paris in 1651
that was both the first universal and vernacular
geographical dictionary of Europe. With the gradual
expansion of Laurence Echard's (d. 1730) gazetteer of
1693, it too became a universal geographical dictionary
that was translated into Spanish in 1750, into French in
1809, and into Italian in 1810.
      Following the American Revolutionary War, United
States clergyman and historian Jeremy Belknap and
Postmaster General Ebenezer Hazard intended to create
the first post-revolutionary geographical works and
gazetteers, but they were anticipated by the clergyman and
geographer Jedidiah Morse with his Geography Made
Easy in 1784. However, Morse was unable to finish the
gazetteer in time for his 1784 geography and postponed it.
Yet his delay to publish it lasted too long, as it was Joseph
Scott in 1795 who published the first post-revolutionary
American gazetteer, his Gazetteer of the United States.
With the aid of Noah Webster and Rev. Samuel Austin,
Morse finally published his gazetteer The American
Universal Geography in 1797. However, Morse's gazetteer
did not receive distinction by literary critics, as gazetteers
were deemed as belonging to a lower literary class. The
reviewer of Joseph Scott's 1795 gazetteer commented that
it was "little more than medleys of politics, history and
miscellaneous remarks on the manners, languages and arts
of different nations, arranged in the order in which the
territories stand on the map." Nevertheless, in 1802 Morse
followed up his original work by co-publishing A New
Gazetteer of the Eastern Continent with Rev. Elijah Parish,
                                                             1558

        the latter of whom Ralph H. Brown asserts did the "lion's
        share of the work in compiling it."
1391.      In 19th Century it is said that gazetteers were widely
popular in Britain with publishers such as Fullarton, Mackenzie,
Chambers and W & A.K. Johnston, many of whom were
Scottish, meeting public demand for information on an
expanding Empire.
1392.     The above discussion gives us an idea and broad feature
of documents published and termed as "Gazetteer". There is
distinction between Gazette and Gazetteer. The British
Government enacted "Official Gazette Act, 1863" (Act No.
XXXI of 1863) and published various Gazettes thereunder. The
Gazetteer, as said about is not founded on a statute but being a
document published under the authority or auspices of the
Government, deserve much more reliability and confidence. It
constitute an important source of historical and other
informations in general and most authenticated data about the
then existing affairs.
1393.         The extent to which informations contained in
Gazetters can be believed, relied and considered has been
subject matter of Courts time and again wherein the information
contained in the Gazetters has also been utilized in one or the
other manner. Some of such cases may be referred as under. It
appears that the consensus of the judicial opinion is that
information contained in a Gazetteer can be considered but
carrectness thereof may need corrorroboration. It all depend on
the nature of dispute in every case.
1394.         In Fulbati Kumari Vs. Maheshwari Prasad Singh
AIR 1923 Patna 453 a Division Bench of Patna High Court
relied upon the Bengal District Gazetteer, Volume XVII in order
                                                                  1559

to gather some information about what happened at Dumri when
Captain Brown took over charge of the operations in the jungle
terry tracts in 1774.
1395.          In Sukhdev Singh Vs. Maharaja Bahadur of
Gidhaur AIR 1951 SC 288 Bengal District Gazetteer, Vol.
XVII was referred and in para 10 the Apex Court held:
         "The statement in the District Gazetteer is not necessarily
         conclusive, but the Gazetteer is an official document of
         some value, as it is compiled by experienced officials with
         great care after obtaining the facts from official records."
1396.          In Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mahomed Jaffar
Hussein AIR 1954 SC 5 a dispute regarding management of a
Darga known as Haji Malang came to be considered before the
Apex Court. The Darga had two tomb, one of a Hindu and
another of Muslim saint. The Court referred to the Gazetteer of
Bombay to find out the history which is said to have lost an
antiquity and from the gazetteer it appears that a Muslim saint
came to India as an Urban missionary in 13th century and after
his death, he was buried in the said Darga. There was another
tomb called Mayi's tomb where the body of a Hindu Raja's
daughter treated by Bawa Malang as his daughter was buried. In
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court
observed that such matter cannot be governed either by Hindu
or Muslim law but should be governed by its own special
customs or by general law of public religious and charitable
trust.
1397.          In Chhote Khan & others Vs. Mal Khan & others
AIR 1954 SC 575, the Court referred to Gazetteer Gurgaon
District (1910) with respect to the properties owned by Meos of
Ferozepore Tehsil and others villages in Gurgaon. It also
                                                                 1560

referres to the settlement record of 1877 observing that it is an
important document.
1398.         In Biswambhar Singh & others Vs. State of Orissa
& another AIR 1954 SC 139, the Court referred to Hunter's
Imperial Gazetter, Volume 4, page 478 which mentions certain
facts about the origin of Bhuyans as also the Settlement Report
of 1907-1911.
1399.         In   Commissioner      of    Income-tax     Vs.    Sri
Ramakrishna Deo AIR 1959 SC 239, the Court referred to the
District Gazetteer, Vishakhapatnam, 1907 in para 3 of its
judgment.
1400.         In State of Bihar & others Vs. Bhabapritananda
Ojha AIR 1959 SC 1073, the Court referred to Bihar District
Gazetteer relating to Santal Parganas, 1938.
1401.         In Swami Motor Transports (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt & Anr. AIR 1963 SC 864 the
Court resorted to rely on "Madras District Gazetteers, Madurai"
in respect to certain statistical data published therein in support
of the claim of the State observing that this is the information
furnished from authorized Government publication.
1402.         In Mahant Shri Srinivasa Ramanuj Das Vs.
Surayan Dass & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 256 the Court said:
        "These statements in the Gazetteer are not relied on as
        evidence of title but as providing historical material and
        the practice followed by the Math and its head. The
        Gazetteer can be consulted on matters of public history."
1403.         In   Laxman     Siddappa     Naik    vs.   Kattimani
Chandappa Jampanna and others AIR 1968 SC 929 the Apex
Court approved the consultation of Bombay Karnatak Gazetteer
of 1893 and certain other similar documents to find out the
                                                                 1561

distinguishing customs and manners of different tribes.
1404.         Sri R.L.Verma, however, submits that in a suit
where the question of title of temple or property is involved, it
cannot be said to be a question of history and therefore, neither
the Gazetteers nor the report of Archaeological Survey etc. can
be an appropriate book of reference for deciding such a
controversy and placed reliance on Farzand Ali Vs. Zafar Ali
46 IC 119 where it is observed:
              "We are inclined to think that the use of the
        historical works to establish title to the property cannot be
        justified on the strength of Section 57 of the Indian
        Evidence Act. The question of title between the trustee of a
        mosque, though an old and historical institution, and a
        private person, cannot, in our opinion, be deemed to be a
        'matter of public history' within the meaning of the said
        section."
1405.         The submission, in our view, is totally misconceived
and travels much beyond the point for which the various copies
of gazetteers have been filed before us by the parties and in fact
some observations therefrom are also relied by Sri Verma. For
the purpose of historical events and fact as they were centuries
ago, the manner in which they have taken are detailed in the
documents published under the authority of the then
Government in the form of Gazetteers.
1406.         Mahant Shri Srinivasa Ramanuj Das (supra)
dictum has been followed in Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (Dead)
Vs. Nanilal Harakchand Shah (Dead) & Ors. 2002 (6) SCC
404.
1407.         The first gazetteer in respect to Indian sub-continent
came to be published in 1828 under the title "East India
                                                                1562

Gazetteer" by Walter Hamilton (second edition reprint 1993
by Low Price Publications, Delhi) containing particulars and
descriptions    of   the   Empires,    Kingdoms,     Principalities,
Provinces, Cities, Towns, Districts, Fortresses, harbours, rivers,
lakes and, C. of Hindostan and the adjacent Countries, India
beyond the Ganges and the eastern Archipelago.
1408.        Hamilton's "Gazetter" of 1828 on page 353 under
the heading 'Oude' gives following information about Ayodhya :
        "Pilgrims resort to this vicinity, where the remains of the
        ancient city of Oude, and capital of the great Rama, are
        still to be seen; but whatever may have been its former
        magnificence it now exhibits nothing but a shapeless mass
        of ruins. The modern town extends a considerable way
        along the banks of the Goggra, adjoining Fyzabad, and is
        tolerably well peopled; but inland it is a mass of rubbish
        and jungle, among which are the reputed site of temples
        dedicated to Rama, Seeta, his wife, Lakshman, his
        general, and Hanimaun (a large monkey), his prime
        minister. The religious mendicants who perform the
        pilgrimage to Oude are chiefly of the Ramata sect, who
        walk round the temples and idols, bathe in the holy pools,
        and perform the customary ceremonies."
1409.       Thereafter Robert Montgomery Martin, for the first
time sought to contradict local belief or tradition about the
person who made construction by referring to an inscription on
the wall of the disputed building according to which it was the
work of the conqueror Babar falsifying the local tradition of its
construction by Aurangzabe in his work "The History,
Antiquities, Topography and Statistics of Eastern India"
(1838 AD) (Ex. 20, Suit 5-Paper No.107C1/109-110). The copy
                                                                   1563

of the book in all 6 volumes available to the Court is the first
Indian reprint 1976 by Cosmo Publications, Delhi. The details
of inscription referred to in the above passage have not been
given. It says at page 334/335, Vol.II, as under:
        ".... if these temples ever existed, not the smallest trace of
        them remains to enable us to judge of the period when they
        were built; and the destruction is very generally attributed
        by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurungzebe, to whom
        also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Benares
        and Mathura. What may have been the case in the two
        latter, I shall not now take upon myself to say, but with
        respect to Ayodhya the tradition seems very ill founded.
        The bigot by whom the temples were destroyed, is said to
        have erected mosques on the situations of the most
        remarkable temples; but the mosque at Ayodhya, which is
        by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of
        being the most modern, is ascertained by an inscription on
        its walls (of which a copy is given) to have been built by
        Babur, five generations before Aurungzebe."
1410.         Edward     Thornton    in   "A    Gazetteer    of    the
Territories under the Government of the East-India
Company and of the native States on the Continent of India",
first published in 1858 (reproduced in 1993) by Low Price
Publications, Delhi (Book No. 10) on page 739 (Paper
No.107C1-10 i.e. Ex.5 Suit 5) under the heading "Oudh"
observed as under:
              "According to native tradition, they were demolished
        by Aurungzebe, who built a mosque on part of the site. The
        falsehood of the tradition is, however, proved by an
        inscription on the wall of the mosque, attributing the work
                                                                 1564

        to the conqueror Baber, from whom Aurungzabe was fifth
        in descent. The mosque is embellished with fourteen
        columns of only five or six feet in height, but of very
        elaborate and tasteful workmanship, said to have been
        taken from the ruins of the Hindoo fanes . . . . ." (emphasis
        added)
1411.         We do not find from the above Gazetteer whether
Thornton himself had viewed the alleged inscription, whether
there was only one inscription or more than one and whether
Thornton was capable of himself reading Persian/Arabic or the
said information is based on secondary evidence, i.e.,
information he might have received from somebody else whose
authenticity is also not known. To us it appear that the above
observations are founded on what has been noticed by Robert
Montgomery Martin in "The History, Antiquities, Topography
and Statistics of Eastern India" by Robort Montgomry
Martin (Vol-II) (first published in 1838 AD) (Supra) (Ex. 20,
Suit-5-Paper No. 107 C1/109-110) where referring to the survey
made by the Dr. Buchanan, Martin referred the inscription and
contradicted local belief and tradition of demolition by
Aurangzeb and said that it must have been the work of Babar.
1412.         However, from the words "an inscription", to us it
appears that according to his information there existed only one
inscription on the wall of the mosque which attributed the work
to Emperor Babar.
1413.         Then comes P. Carnegy's "A Historical Sketch of
Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad" (hereinafter referred to as
"P. Carnegy's Historical Sketch"). He was an Officiating
Commissioner and Settlement Officer at Faizabad and in 1967
prepared the said report which was published in 1870. Copies
                                                               1565

of frontispiece, pages 5, 6, 7, 19, 20 and 21 have been filed as
paper No.107C1/17-23 i.e. Ex.49, Suit 5 (Register 20, page 35-
47). Appendix-A containing the list of sacred places in and
about Ajudhia has been filed as Ex. A-10 (Suit4) (Register 16,
pages 67 to 78). With respect to construction of the disputed
building, on page 20 and 21 of the book, (Paper No.107C1/22-
23), P. Carnegy has said:
           "The Janamasthan and other temples.- It is locally
     affirmed that at the Mahomedan conquest there were three
     important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees attached, at
     Ajudhia, which was then little other than wilderness. These
     were the "Janamasthan," the "Sargadwar mandir" also
     known as "Ram Darbar" and the "Tareta-ke-Thakur."
           On the first of these the Emperor Babar built the
     mosque which still bears his name, A.D. 1528. On the
     second Aurangzeb did the same A.D. 1658-1707; and on
     the third that sovereign, or his predecessor, built a mosque,
     according to the well known Mahomedan principle of
     enforcing their religion on all those whom they conquered.
           Babar's mosque.- According to Leyden's memoirs of
     Babar that Emperor encamped at the junction of the Serwa
     and Gogra rivers two or three kos east from Ajudhia, on
     the 28th March1528, and there he halted 7 or 8 days setting
     the surrounding country. A well known hunting ground is
     spoken of in that work, 7 or 8 kos above Oudh, on the
     banks of the Surju. It is remarkable that in all the copies of
     Babar's life now known, the pages that relate to his doings
     at Ajudhia are wanting. In two places in the Babari mosque
     the year in which it was built 935 H. corresponding with
     1528 A.D. is carved in stone, along with inscriptions
                                                                1566

        dedicated to the glory of that Emperor.
1414.         The reference of inscriptions in Carnegy's Historical
Sketch is also at page 27, Section VI under the heading
"Buildings" at Serial Item 5 which states as under:
        "Babar's mosque with stone inscriptions in Ajudhia, date
        A.D. 1528, and stone columns of infinitely greater
        antiquity."
1415.         Here Carnegy has referred two inscriptions on the
disputed building to infer that the same was constructed in 935
Hizra (corresponding with 1528 AD). He has also not said
anything further. He also gave no details or the text of the
alleged inscriptions.
1416.         In "Gazetteer of Oudh" by Mr. W.C. Benett, C.S.,
Assistant Commissioner (1877) (Book No. 11), the factum of
the construction of disputed building is given on page 6/7 which
is a virtual reproduction of what is said in P. Carnegy's
Historical Sketch (supra) as evident from the following:
              "The Janamasthan and other temples.--It is locally
        affirmed that at the Muhammadan conquest there were
        three important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees
        attached, at Ajodhya, which was then little other than a
        wilderness.   These   were    the   "Janamasthan,"      the
        "Swargaddwar mandir" also known as "Ram Darbar,"
        "Treta-ke-Thakur."
              On the first of these the Emperor Babar built the
        mosque, which still bears his name, A.D. 1528. On the
        second, Aurangzeb did the same, A.D. 1658 to 1707; and
        on the third, that sovereign or his predecessors built a
        mosque, according to the well-known Muhammadan
        principle of enforcing their religion on all those whom they
                                                                 1567

        conquered.
              Babar's mosque.--According to Leyden's Memoirs of
        Babar, that Emperor encamped at the junction of the Serwa
        and Gogra rivers two or three kos east from Ajodhya, on
        the 28th March 1528, and there he halted seven or eight
        days, settling the surrounding country. A well-known
        hunting ground is spoken of in that work, seven or eight kos
        above Oudh, on the banks of the Sarju. It is remarkable
        that in all the copies of Babar's life now known, the
        pages that relate to his doings at Ajodhya are wanting.
        In two places in the Babari Mosque, the year in which it
        was built, 935 H., corresponding with 1528 A.D., is
        carved in stone, along with inscriptions dedicated to the
        glory of that Emperor.
              If Ajodhya was then little other than a wilderness, it
        must at least have possessed a fine temple in the
        Janamasthan; for many of its columns are still in
        existence and in good preservation, having been used by
        the Musalmans in the construction of the Babari
        Mosque. These are of strong, close-grained, dark-colored
        or black stone, called by the natives kasauti (literally
        touch-stone slate,) and carved with different devices. To my
        thinking these more strongly resemble Buddhist pillars
        than those I have seen at Benares and elsewhere. They are
        from seven to eight feet long, square at the base, centre and
        capital, and round or octagonal intermediately." (emphasis
        added)
1417.     Next is the "Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh" Vol. I
(three volumes in one) published by Low Price Publications,
Delhi (first published in 1877-78) (reprinted in LPP 1993)
                                                                1568

(Book No. 11). Copy of pages No.6 and 7 of the aforesaid
Gazetteer have been filed as Papers No.107C1/25-26 i.e. Ex.7,
Suit-5 (Register 20, Page 51-53). The 'introduction' of the above
gazetteer has been written by Mr. W.C. Benett, C.S., Assistant
Commissioner. Therefore, to us it appears that the above
gazetteer was prepared by or under the supervision of Mr.
Benett who might have been assisted with a number of other
offers contributing write ups on different items. On page
XXXIX, chapter I, "Introduction", it says:
              "The great Afghan captains whom that prince
        defeated in Oudh have left no representatives, and the four
        pages describing the events which attended his entry to
        Ajodhya, where it is possible that the Hindu chiefs rallied
        round the centre of their religion, are missing from all the
        known copies of his memoirs. The only record remaining
        is an ancient mosque, which preserves the invader's
        name on the holiest spot of all--the birthplace of
        Rama."
1418.         Thereafter on page 6/7, under the headings "The
Janamasthan and other temples" and "Babar's mosque" it
mentions about the inscriptions at two places in the disputed
building to show the period of construction and the person by
whom it was constructed. It is again a repetition of what was
said in P. Carnegy's Historical Sketch (supra) and there is no
substantial difference therein:
              "The Janamasthan and other temples--It is locally
        affirmed that at the Muhammadan conquest there were
        three important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees
        attached, at Ajodhya, which was then little other than a
        wilderness.   These    were    the   "Janamasthan"      the
                                                                1569

        "Swargaddwar mandir" also known as "Ram Darbar,"
        "Treta-ke-Thakur".
              On the first of these the Emperor Babar built the
        mosque, which still bears his name, A.D. 1528. On the
        second, Aurangzed did the same, A.D. 1658 to 1707; and
        on the third, that sovereign or his predecessors built a
        mosque, according to the well-known Muhammadan
        principle of enforcing their religion on all those whom they
        conquered."
              Babar's mosque--According to Leyden's Memoirs of
        Babar, that Emperor encamped at the junction of the Serwa
        and Gogra rivers two or three kos east from Ajodhya on
        the 28th March 1528, and there he halted seven or eight
        days, settling the surrounding country. A well-known
        hunting ground is spoken of in that work, seven or eight kos
        above Oudh, on the banks of the Sarju. It is remarkable
        that in all the copies of Babar's life now known, the pages
        that relate to his doings at Ajodhya are wanting. In two
        places in the Babari Mosque, the year in which it was
        built, 935 H. corresponding with 1528 A.D. is carved in
        stone, along with inscriptions dedicated to the glory of
        that Emperor."
1419.      "Report on the settlement of the Land Revenue of the
Fyzabad District", (Book No. 18) by A.F. Millett, C.S.,
Officiating Settlement Officer, published by North Western
Provinces and Oudh Government press, Allahabad in 1880
(hereinafter referred to as "Millet's report, 1880"). The book on
the very first page mentions that it contains partly, reports and
notes of P. Carnegy, late Settlement Officer, and J. Woodborn,
late Officiating Settlement Officer. Copies of the frontispiece as
                                                                1570

well as page No.218, 231, 235 and 236 have been filed as Paper
No.107C1/27-30A i.e. Ex.8, Suit-5 (Register Vol.20 Pages 55-
62).
1420.      Here also reference of the disputed building, the period
of its construction by Emperor Babar is in the same language as
stated in P. Carnegy's Historical Sketch (supra) and there is no
substantial difference in the two except of some addition as is
evident from para 666 and 667, read as under:
              "666. The Janmasthan and other temples.- It is
        locally affirmed that at the Mahomedan conquest there
        were three important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees
        attached, at Ajudhya, which was then little other than a
        wilderness.   These    were    the    "Janmasthan,"     the
        "Sargadwar mandir," also known as "Ram Darbar," and
        "Tareta-Ke-Thakur." On the first of these the Emperor
        Baber built the mosque which still bears his name, A.D.
        1528; on the second Aurangzeb did the same, A.D. 1658-
        1707; and on the third that sovereign, or his predecessor,
        built a mosque according to the well-known Mahomedan
        principle of enforcing their religion on all those whom they
        conquered. The Janmasthan marks the place where
        Ramchandar was born. The Sargadwar is the gate
        through which he passed into Paradise, possibly the spot
        where his body was burned. The Tareta-Ke-Thakur was
        famous as the place where Rama performed a great
        sacrifice, and which he commemorated by setting up there
        images of himself and Sita.
              "667. Babar's mosque.- According to Leyden's
        Memoirs of Babar, that emperor encamped at the junction
        of the Serwu and Gogra rivers, two or three kos east from
                                                               1571

        Ajudhya, on the 28th March, 1528, and there he halted
        seven or eight days, settling the surrounding country. A
        well-known hunting-ground is spoken of in that work, seven
        or eight kos above Oudh, on the banks of the Sarju. It is
        remarkable that in all the copies of Babar's life now known
        the pages that relate to his doings at Ajudhya are wanting.
        In two places in the Babari mosque the year in which it
        was built, 935 H., corresponding with 1528 A.D., is
        carved in stone, along with inscriptions dedicated to the
        glory of that emperor."
1421.      Next comes "Barabanki: A gazetteer being Volume
XLVIII of the District Gazetteer of the United Provinces of
Agra and Oudh" compiled and edited by H.R. Nevill, I.C.S.,
printed by F. Luker, Supdt., Government Press, United
Provinces, Allahabad in 1904 (hereinafter referred to as
"Nevill's Barabanki Gazetteer 1904"). Copy of pages No.168-
169 have been filed as Paper No.107C1/40-41; Ex.52, Suit-5.
He does not refer to any inscription etc. but while describing
Hindu Muslim clash said to have occurred in 1853, he observed:
        "The cause of the occurrence was one of the numerous
        disputes that have sprung up from time to time between the
        Hindu priests and the Musalmans of Ajodhya with regard
        to the ground on which formerly stood the Janamasthan
        temple, which was destroyed by Babar and replaced by a
        mosque."
1422.       In "Fyzabad-a Gazetteer being Vol. XLIII of the
District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and
Oudh" by H.R. Nevill published in 1905 (Book No. 4)
(hereinafter referred to as "Fyzabad Gazetteer, 1905"), page
173 refers to two inscriptions with the details of their place of
                                                              1572

installation:
                "Ajodhya is pre-eminently a city of temples, and
      apart from these there are but few points of interest in the
      place. Not all of these places of worship are connected with
      the Hindu religion. There are six Jain shrines which have
      been already mentioned in Chapter III in connection with
      Jainism in this district; and there are also the Musalman
      mosques and tombs. It is locally affirmed that at the time
      of the Musalman conquest there were three important
      Hindu shrines at Ajodhya and little else. These were the
      Janamasthan temple, the Swargaddwar, and the Treta-
      ka-Thakur, and each was successively made the object
      of attention of different Musalman rulers. The
      Janamsthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace
      of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ajodhya and
      halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple
      and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar'
      mosque. The materials of the old structure were largely
      employed, and many of the columns are in good
      preservation; they are of close grained black stone,
      called by the natives Kasauti, and carved with various
      devices. Their length is from seven to eight feet, and the
      shape square at the base, centre and capital, the rest being
      round or octagonal. The mosque has two inscriptions, one
      on the outside and the other on the pulpit; both are in
      Persian and bear the date 935 Hijri. Of the authenticity of
      the inscriptions there can be no doubt, but no record of the
      visit to Ajodhya is to be found in the Musalman historians.
      It must have occurred about the time of his expedition to
      Bihar." (emphasis added)
                                                                 1573

        The copy of the frontispiece and pages No.172, 173, 171,
175, 176 and 177 have been filed as paper No.107C1/42-48;
Ex.11, Suit-5; Register Vol.20 page 85-97.

1423.       Next is "Imperial Gazetteer of India--Provincial
Series--United Provinces of Agra and Oudh"-Vol. II (1908)
(Book No. 16) published by Superintendent of Government
Printing Calcutta, where at page 388-389 (Ex.10 Suit-5; Paper
No.107C1/37-39) it says:
              "At one corner of a vast mound known as Ramkot,
        or the fort of Rama, is the holy spot where the hero was
        born. Most of the enclosure is occupied by a mosque
        built by Babar from the remains of an old temple, and in
        the outer portion a small platform and shrine mark the
        birthplace. Close by is a larger temple in which is shown
        the cooking-place of Sita, the faithful wife of Rama. A lofty
        temple stands on the bank of the Gogra at the place where
        Lakshmana bathed; and Hanuman, king of the monkeys, is
        worshipped in a large temple in the town, approached by
        an immense flight of steps, which bears the name Hanuman
        Garhi. Other noticeable temples built during the eighteenth
        and nineteenth centuries are the Kanakbhawan, a fine
        building   erected   by   a   Rani    of   Tikamgarh,    the
        Nageshwarnath temple, Darshan Singh's temple, and a
        small marble temple built by the present Maharaja,
        Ajodhya also contains a number of Jain temples, five of
        which were built in the eighteenth century to mark the
        birthplaces of the five heirarchs who are said to have been
        born at Ajodhya. Besides the mosque of Babar, two
        ruined mosques, built by Aurangzeb, stand on the sites
        of celebrated Hindu shrines--the Swargadwara, where
                                                              1574

        Rama's body was cremated, and the Treta-ka-Thakur,
        where he sacrificed." (emphasis added)
1424.      The above gazetteer only refers the name of Emperor
Babar that he constructed disputed building but neither the
period nor the basis of such information is mentioned.
1425.        H.R. Nevill, I.C.S., published another gazetteer in
1928 under the title "Fyzabad: A Gazetteer being Vol. XLIII
of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and
Oudh". Copy of the frontispiece and pages no.178, 179, 180
and 181 have been filed as Paper No.107C1/49-53 (Register 20,
pages 99-107). In the preface written by Nevill in February,
1905 he said that in the earlier gazetteer of the province of
Oudh, articles dealing with District Fyzabad and its various
other divisions, towns and villages were taken almost wholly
from the valuable and defuse Settlement Report of Mr. A.F.
Millett, which embodied a large proportion of the remarkable
notes and reports of Mr. Patrick Carnegy and the late Sri John
Woodburn. These contain much that is now obsolete and still
more of a purely traditional and speculative character. After
collecting fresh materiel he found the necessity of publication of
the said gazetteer. Chapter V deals with 'History'. For the
present purpose we are confining to that part of the Gazetteer
which deals with the period of construction of the disputed
structure. On pages 151-152 the facts about the first Muslim
invasion of Oudh is mentioned as under:
             "The first Musalman invasion of Oudh was,
        according to the popular tradition, that of Saiyid Salar
        Masaud. The Mirat-i-Masaudi states that the youthful
        invader went from Multan to Ajodhya, where, after taking
        the city without a struggle, he remained hunting for some
                                                                  1575

        time and then set out for Delhi in 1030 A.D. The route
        taken is remarkable and the story must be confused in some
        manner. There is no mention of his passing through
        Ajodhya on his march from Satrikh to Bahraich, where he
        met his death; but popular legend steps in to fill the gap."
1426.       The above narration is sought to be supported by
referring to the "History of India-As told by its own
Historians" by Sir H.M. Elliot and John Dowson, Vol. II, page
531. We have with us all the eight volumes of the book of Elliot
and Dowson which was first published in 1866-1877 and
reprinted in 1990, 1996, 2001 and 2008. In the appendix
Chapter III which starts from page 528 of Vol. II it appears that
Salar Masud son of Sultan Mahmud Subuktagin came to India
by crossing the river Indus. Having conquest Multan he led his
army against 'Ajudhan'. A few lines from page 530-531 of
Elliot and Dowson's book are as under:
              "The rainy season had now set in, so they remained
        at Multan the next four months. After the rains, Mas'ud led
        his army against Ajudhan. Although, in those days, that
        place and its vicinity was thickly peopled, it was subdued
        without a struggle. Mas'ud was delighted with the climate
        of Ajudhan, and as, moreover, it was a good sporting
        country, he remained there till the end of the following
        rains, when he set off for Delhi."
1427.     On page 530, footnote, the authors (Elliot and Dowson)
have said:
              "Ajudha or Ayodhya is the old form of the name
        Oudh. The scene of Mas'ud's later exploits is laid in the
        neighbourhood of Oudh."
1428.        This narration claims to be an English translation of
                                                                1576

"Mir-at-i-Masaudi" written by Abdu-r Rahman Chishti. On page
513 the editor of the book "History of India" has mentioned
about the author and the book "Mir-at-i-Masaudi" as well the
following facts in order to enhance the degree of reliability on
the aforesaid work in respect to life story of Salar Masaud:
            "This is professedly a life of Mas'ud the Ghaznivide,
      and finds an appropriate place here after the story books.
      The author of this extraordinary work was by name' Abdu-r
      Rahman Chirsti. He explains the motives which impelled
      him to its composition, and the sources of his information
      after the following manner: "The history of the King of
      Martyrs, Salar Mas'ud, the facts of his birth, of his coming
      to Hindustan, and of his martyrdom, are told by different
      men in various ways, which have not found a place in any
      historical work of repute. The writer had long endeavoured
      to ascertain the real facts; and, after much research he
      obtained possession of an old book written by Mulla
      Muhammad Ghaznawi. This man was servant of Sultan
      Mahmud Subuktigin. He was also in the service of Salar
      Sahu, and of the Prince of Martyrs, whom he survived. The
      writer perused this old book from beginning to end with the
      greatest pleasure, and the doubts which he had entertained
      were dispelled. The book was very long, it entered into
      details about the wars of Sultan Mahmud, and Salar Sahu,
      mentioning incidentally here and there the King of
      Martyrs, and closing with an account of his martyrdom.
      Several of the beloved friends and attendants of the Martyr
      Sultan, in the abodes of the blessed, have urged the writer
      to the task which he has undertaken; but no one has made
      the same demand on behalf of Sultan Mahmud. It therefore
                                                                 1577

        seemed expedient to him that he should select and commit
        to writing all that related to the Martyr King. He would
        not, however, have been able to succeed, even in this,
        without the directions he graciously received from the
        spirit of the departed. When he had set about his selection,
        and had engaged earnestly in the work, one night the spirit
        of the deceased martyr appeared to the writer in a vision,
        and most condescendingly expressed, with his blessed
        tongue, his approval of the work. Being thus graciously
        honoured, the author humbly replied that he had begun the
        work, and begged for assistance wherever his narration
        might be too high, or too low, too short, or too long. The
        spirit, with great affability, directed the author to write,
        and that he would attend to him and assist him. The present
        work is the result, to which the author has given the name
        Mir-at-i Mas'udi. May the reader of it also be (mas'ud)
        blessed. This is the author's prayer. The biography of the
        King of Martyrs having been derived from the aforesaid
        history, is here related in five chapters (dastans). Sundry
        incidents, and miraculous statements, which have been
        found in trustworthy books, have been selected, and, after
        being verified by oral communications with the author's
        spiritual visitors, have been inserted in the present work."
1429.     The editor of "History of India" thereafter has termed
the book as a historical romance and says that the book mainly
seems to rest on the last word "Tawarikh-i-Mahmudi" of Mulla
Muhammad Ghaznawi but at places it is difficult to rely on the
narration. We do not find it expedient to go further except to
point out that in all the subsequent Gazetteers, this history of
invasion of Ayodhya by "Syed Salar Masud" has been followed
                                                                           1578

referring to Elliot and Dowson's "History of India" Vol. II page
530/531 where the learned authors got confused by identifying
"Ajudhan" as "Ayodhya" though the two are different places.
"Ajudhan" was a place in "Punjab" while "Ayodhay" is much
far therefrom. This mistake unfortunately has continued in a lot
of History books also which have been published until recently.
1430.          Dr. T.P. Verma, Historian and author of the book
"Ayodhya Ka Itihas Evam Puratatva" (Exhibit 3-Suit 5)
(Book No. 141) who has also written the same fact at page
110/111 in his above titled book, in his cross examination has
admitted this error. He admits that "Salar Masud" never came
to "Ayodhya" and he has wrongly mentioned the same in his
book as is evident from the following:
               ^^bl ckr dh lEHkkouk de gS fd 11oha 'krkCnh esa v;ks/;k esa
        eqlyekuksa dh vkcknh jgh gksxhA lkykj elwn ds lSfud vf/kdkjh
        [oktk feV~Bs 1032 bZLoh ds djhc v;ks/;k esa vk;s jgs gksxsaA esjs fopkj
        ls v;ks/;k dh lcls iqjkuh efLtn ogh efLtn Fkh] tks ckcjh efLtn
        dgh tkrh FkhA ---13oha ls 17 oha 'krkCnh ds chp esa v;ks/;k dh x.kuk
        Hkkjr o"kZ ds cM+s 'kgjksa esa gksrh Fkh] tks vkt dh v;ks/;k ls cM+h jgh
        gksxhA ml le; QStkckn uke dk dksbZ 'kgj ugha FkkA --- fejkrs &
        elwnh esa 10 & 12 jktkvksa ds uke fn;s gSa ijUrq ;g ugha fn;k x;k gS
        fd v;ks/;k esa ml le; jktk dkSu FkkA** ¼ist 347&348½
               "There is least probability that Muslim populace
        may have existed in Ayodhya in the 11th century. Salar
        Masood's army officer Khwaja Miththe may have visited
        Ayodhya around 1032 AD. In my view, the oldest mosque
        in Ayodhya was the same mosque, which was called Babri
        mosque ... Ayodhya was considered to be a major city of
        India between 13th to 17th century, which was bigger than
        Ayodhya of today. At that time there was no city named
        Faizabad. ... The Mirate-Masoodi contains names of 10-12
                                                                    1579

kings, but it has not been given as to who was the king at
that time." (E.T.C)
       ^^xokg us viuh iqLrd izn'kZ vks0vks0,l0 5 &3 ds ist 158 ds
f}rh; dkye dks ns[kdj dgk fd ;g okD; fd ^^blds iwoZ mlus
lrj[k ¼lkdsr vFkok v;ks/;k½ esa Msjk Mkyk Fkk**] dFku xyr gS]lgh
ugha gS] vkSj ,slk dksbZ o.kZu ehjkr&,&elwnh esa ugha feyrk gSA
^^ehjkr&,&elwnh** esa lrj[k esa Msjk Mkyus dh ckr dgh x;h gS] ysfdu
;g lrj[k] lkdsr ;k v;ks/;k gS ;g ckr lgh ugha gSA lrj[k
¼lrfj[k½ QStkckn vkSj ckjkcadh ds chp esa fLFkr ,d LFkku dk uke gS
tks vo/k {ks= esa iM+rk gSA ftldh nwjh orZeku v;ks/;k ls 50 ehy ls
vf/kd gksxhA ---- {ks= ls esjk rkRi;Z u rks v;ks/;k gS vkSj u lrfj[k
cfYd blls esjk rkRi;Z lEiw.kZ vo/k {ks= ls gSA** ¼ist 349&350½
       "After looking at second column of page 158 of his
book, exhibit O.O.S 5-3, the witness stated that the
sentence reading as 'prior to this he had camped at
Satrakh (Saket or Ayodhya)' , is wrong and is not correct
and no such reference is found in Mirat-e-masoodi. The
Mirat-e-masoodi mentions about camping at Satrakh, but it
is not correct that this Satrakh is Saket or Ayodhya.
Satrakh (Satrikh) is a place situated between Faizabad and
Barabanki, which falls in Awadh area and whose distance
would be more than 50 miles from the present Ayodhya. ...
By area, I neither mean Ayodhya nor Satrikh and instead I
mean the complete Awadh zone." (E.T.C)
       ^^ehjkrs , elwnh esa lkykj elwn ds v;ks/;kk vkus dh ckr ugha
dgh x;h gS ;g eSa Lohdkj dj pqdk gwa ysfdu bl ckr dh lEHkkouk
vHkh Hkh cuh gqbZ gS fd mlds lSfudksa dh fdlh Vksyh us tUe Hkwfe eafnj
dks {kfr igqapkbZ gks D;ksafd vkt gh eSa FkksM+h nsj igys crk pqdk gwa fd
guqeku x<+h esa lkykj elwn ds lSfud vf/kdkjh [oktk feV~Bs dh dcz
gksus dh ckr dgh gSA** ¼ist 350½
       "The Mirat-e-masoodi nowhere mentions about
                                                                      1580

Salar Masood visiting Ayodhya. I have admitted this, but
this probability still exists that certain group of his soldier
may have caused damage to Janmbhumi temple because I
have stated a short while ago that the existence of the
grave of Khwaja Miththe,              an army officer of Salar
Masood, has been claimed at Hanumangarhi." (E.T.C)
        ^^[oktk feV~ B s dh dcz v;k s/ ;k esa gk su s vFkok muds
lkykj      elwn      ds     lS f ud   vf/kdkjh      gk su s     dh   ckr
ehjkrs& ,&el wn h es a ugh a vkrh gS A 1955 esa fcgkj ls izdkf'kr
guqeku x<+h dk bfrgkl** uked iqLrd ftlds ys[kd veR;Z & flag gSa]
us bl ckr dk gokyk viuh iqLrd esa fn;k gS vkSj dgk gS fd [oktk
feV~Bs ds dcz dh ckr dks ,d b';w cuk;k x;k Fkk blh vk/kkj ij eSaus
v;ks/;k esa elwn ds lsukvksa ds vkdze.k dh ckr vkSj mlds eafnjksa ds
{kfrxzLr djus ds ckjs esa fy[kk gSA eSaus viuh iqLrd izn'kZ vks0vks0,l0
5&3 esa veR;Z flag dh iqLrd ^6 guqeku x<+h ds bfrgkl dk gokyk
ugha fn;k gS vkSj u gh eSaus viuh iqLrd esa [oktk feV~Bs ds dcz ds gksus
dk gokyk fn;k gSA** ¼ist 351½
        "The Mirat-e-masoodi neither mentions about
existence of the grave of Khwaja Miththe at Ayodhya nor
about he being an army officer of Salaar Masood. This fact
has been referred in the book titled 'Hanumangarhi Ka
Itihas', published in 1955 from Bihar and written by
Amartya Singh, and it has been mentioned that the fact of
Khwaja Miththe's grave had also been made an issue. On
this basis, I have written about Ayodhya's invasion by the
army of Masood and the destruction of its temples. In my
book, exhibit O.O.S 5-3, I have neither referred to Amartya
Singh's book 'Hanumangarhi Ka Itihas'                         nor have I
referred     about        existence    of    grave        of     Khwaja
Miththe."(E.T.C)
        ^^Lo;a dgk fd ehjkr&,&elwnh dks bfrgkl dh iqLrd dk ntkZ
                                                                      1581

        ugha izkIr gSA bls fgLVksfjdy jksekal ;k ,sfrgkfld miU;kl dgk x;k
        gS ftlesa rF; ,oa dYiukvksa dk [kqydj mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] ,slk
        bfy;V ,.M Mkmlu us dgh gSA** ¼ist 354½
              "Stated on his own that the Mirat-e-masoodi is not
        recognized as a history book. It is said to be historical
        romance or historical novel, in which facts and
        imaginations have been used liberally, which is so claimed
        by Elliot and Dawson." (E.T.C)
              ^^bl i`"B ij dze la0 5 ds uhps nh x;h fVIi.kh ls eSa vc bl
        le; iwjh rjg lger ugha gwWaA --- xokg us viuh iqLrd ds i`"B 176
        ds dze la0 21 ds uhps nh x;h fVIi.kh ds izFke okD;ka'k ^^lkykj elwn
        ds vkdze.k ds yxHkx lkr n'kdksa ds ckn** dks ns[kdj dgk fd eS a vc
        blls Hkh lger ugh a gwW aA ** ¼ist 355&356½
              "At present, I do not completely agree with the
        comment contained below serial no.5 of this page. . . . . . . .
        . . . . .After looking at part of the first sentence of the
        comment under serial no.21 of page 176 of his book
        reading as 'after about seven decades of invasion of Salar
        Masood', the witness stated that now I do not agree with
        this as well." (E.T.C)
1431.         Now coming back to "Fyzabad Gazetteer 1928"
(supra) page 155, it mentions:
              "In 1528 Babar built the mosque at Ajudhya on the
        traditional spot where Rama was born."
1432.         Again in the later part a directory is appended and
deals with Ayodhya at page 179/180, it says:
              "It is locally affirmed that at the time of the
        Musalman conquest there were three important Hindu
        shrines at Ajodhya and little else. There were the
        Janamsthan temple, the Swargaddwar and the Treta-ka-
        Thakur, and each was successively made the object of
                                                                   1582

        attention of different Musalman rulers. The Janamasthan
        was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In
        1528 A.D. Babar came to Ajodhya and halted here for a
        week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built
        a mosque, still known as Babar's mosque. The materials of
        the old structure were largely employed, and many of the
        columns are in good preservation; they are of close-
        grained black stone, called by the natives kasauti, and
        carved with various devices. Their length is from seven to
        eight feet, and the shape square at the base, centre and
        capital, the rest being round or octagonal. The mosque
        has two inscriptions, one on the outside and the other on
        the pulpit; both are in Persian and bear the date 935
        Hiji. Of the authenticity of the inscriptions there can be
        no doubt, but no record of the visit to Ahodhya is to be
        found in the Musalman historians. It must have occurred
        about the time of his expedition to Bihar."
1433.         Here also Nevill in the footnote has placed reliance
on Elliot and Dowson's "History of India" Vol. 4 page 283
which is english translation of "Tuzak-I Babari" which is said to
be Leyden and Erskine's translation as per the preface of the
book. We have gone through the entire page 283 of the said
book but do not find any fact mentioned about the construction
of disputed site or building mentioned therein.
1434.         After   independence     under    the   authority     of
Government of Uttar Pradesh (Revenue Department) District
Gazetteers of Uttar Pradesh in the revised form were published.
The "Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers-Faizabad" by Smt.
Esha Basanti Joshi (Book No. 17) was published in 1960 printed
at the Indian Press (Private) Ltd., Allahabad. Copy of the
                                                               1583

frontispiece and pages No.34, 36, 46, 47, 352 and 354 have been
filed as paper No.107C1/54-61 i.e. Ex.13, Suit-5 (Register 20,
pages 109-123). With reference to the construction of disputed
building by Babar and the period it says:
        "The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the
        birthplace of Rama. It seems that in 1528 A.D. Babur
        visited Ayodhya and under his orders this ancient temple
        was destroyed and on the site was built what came to be
        known as Babur's mosque. The material of the old temple
        was largely employed in building the mosque and a few of
        the original columns are still in good preservations; they
        are of cloe grained black stone (kasauti) bearing various
        Hindu bas-reliefs (see Plate I), the outer beam of the main
        structure being of sandal wood. The height of the columns
        is seven to eight feet, the shape of the base, the middle
        section and the capital is square, the rest being round or
        octagonal. There are two inscriptions in Persian, one on
        the outside and the other on the pulpit bearing the date
        935 Hijri."
1435.      Broadly, we find and in fact it is even admitted by Sri
Jilani that the sole basis for determining the period of
construction of the disputed building and to co-relate it with
Emperor Babar is/are the inscription(s) said to be installed in the
disputed building referred to in certain Gazetteers etc. The text
of these inscriptions have been given in different books which
needs threadbare scrutiny to find out whether the disputed
building was constructed in 1528 by or under the order of
Emperor Babar is correct or not.
1436.      The first document which has reproduced the text of
said inscription(s) is the publication of Archaeological Survey
                                                                                 1584

of India titled as "The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur; with
notes on Zafarabad, Sahet-Mahet and Other Places in the
North-Western Provinces and Oudh by A. Fuhrer; Original
edition 1889 (reprinted in 1994) by the Director General
Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as "Fuhrer's Report"). This is edited by Z.A.Desai. Chapter-
X thereof refers to the inscriptions i.e., no. XL; XLI; XLII found
at Ayodhya and is supported with the inscriptions found by
Fuhrer at Ayodhya. It says that there were three inscriptions
wherefrom he (Fuhrer) formed the opinion that the said building
was constructed at Ayodhya in A.H. 930, or A.D. 1523, by Mir
Khan, on the very spot where the old temple Janam Asthanam
of Ramachandra was standing.
1437.         The inscription No. XL was over the central mihrab,
written in Arabic characters and gives twice the Kalimah as
under:
        ‫سول اللہ‬
               ُ ‫ل الّلہ ُمحّمد َر‬
                                 ّ‫ل ا‬           ‫سول اللہ‬
                                                       ُ ‫ل الّلہ ُمحّمد َر‬
                                                                         ّ‫ل ا‬
         "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is His Prophet."
                                        (English Translation by "the Author")
1438.           Inscription No. XLI was found on the mimbar (right
hand side of the disputed building) written in Persian poetry,
the metre being Ramal, in six lines:
        ‫بمنشاے بابر خد یو جہاں‬
        ‫بشانیکہ با کاخ گردوں عناں‬
        ‫بناکردہ ایں خا نہ پایدار‬
        ‫امیر سعادت نشان میر خاں‬
        ‫بماندہ ہمیشہ چنیں باینش‬
        ‫چناں شہر یار زمین و زماں‬
        **1- cea'kk;s ckcj [kn;w tgka
            c'kkus fd ck dk[k+ xjnwW buka
        2- fcuk dnkZ&,&[+kku&,&ik;snkj
                                                                                                   1585

            vehjs lvknr fu'kka ehj [kka
         3- cekun ges'kk pquka ckfu;'k
            pquka 'kgfj;kjs t+ehuks t+eka**
                                                                    (Hindi Transliteration)
         **1- fo'o lezkV ckcj ds vkns'kkuqlkj vkdk'k tSls egy ds HkO; ds
         lkFkA
         2- lqn`<+ ?kj dk vk/kkj j[kk HkkX;oku uokc ehj [kka usA
         3- mldk ,slk laLFkkid vkSj i`Fkoh vkSj ;qx dk ,slk lezkV lnSo
         ftfor jgsA"
                                                                          (Hindi Translation)
         "1. By order of Babar, the kind of the world,
         2. This firmament-like, lofty,
         3. Strong building was erected.
         4. By the auspicious noble Mir Khan.
         5. May ever remain such a foundation,
         6. And such a king of the world."
                                           (English Translation by "the Author")
1439.              Inscription XLII was found above the entrance door
of the disputed building written in Persian poetry, the metre
being Ramal in ten lines. He further says that some characters of
the second and whole third lines are completely defaced:
                                      ‫بسم اللہ الرح ٰمن الرحیم‬
‫بنججججججججججججام انکججججججججججججہ۔۔۔ کنججججججججججججد خججججججججججججالق بقلججججججججججججم جججججججججججججاودانی‬
         ‫۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔‬                                                    ‫۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔‬
         ‫زمیججججں را چججججوں مثججججال شججججادمانی‬             ‫چنججججاہ شہاہنشججججہ مشججججہور اقلیججججم‬
         ‫کججہ خاقججان دولججت و فعفججور ثججانی‬              ‫دراں حضججرت یکججی میججری معظججم‬
         ‫کججہ نہصججد سججی بججود ھجججرت بججدانی‬                    ‫بنججاے ع ہد دیججں تاریججخ میمججوں‬
         ‫بچججججترو تخججججت بخججججت زنججججدگانی‬                  ‫خججججدایا در ج ہاں باشججججاہ بججججادا‬
         ‫کجججد در دور گیجججتی کجججامرانی‬                   ‫فشجججاند در ج ہاں بجججابر گجججل خیجججر‬
         ‫کزیجججں مسججججد حصجججاری ھسجججت بجججانی‬                   ‫مشیرسجججلطنت تجججدبیر ملکجججش‬
         ‫ھذالقط عۃ التاریخ و صفت مسجد بخط نحیف عبد ضعیف فتح اللہ غوری‬
                                                                                         1586

‫محرر‬
^^fclfeYykfgjZgekfujZghe
1- cukes vka fd--------------------------------
      dqun [kkfyd+ cdyes tkosnkuh
2- ---------------------------------------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------

3- pquka ‘kkga’kgs e’kgwjs vd+yhe
t+eha jk pwa felkyss ‘kknekuh
4- njka gt++jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt++e
fd [k+kdk+u nkSyrks o Q+x+Qwjs&lkuh
5- fcuk;s egns nha rkjh[+ksa eSewa
uqg ln lh cqon fgtjr cnkuh**
6- [kqnk;k gj tgka ck ‘kkg cknk
cfp=ks r[+rks c[+rs ft+Unxkuh
7- Q+’kukn nj tgka ckcj xqys [k+Sj
dqun nj nkSjs xsrh dkejkuh
8- eq’khjs lyrur rnchjs eqyd’k
dt+ha efLtn fglkjs gLr ckuh
gkt+y fdrvrqRrkjh[k+ o flQ+rs efLtn c&[k+rs ughQ+ vCns t+bZQ
Q+rgqYykg x+kSjh eqgjZj^^
(Hindi Transliteration by Court)
^^1- ml gLrh ds uke ls tks ——————— mRifRrdrkZ mldks dye }kjk
vej dj nsrk gSA
2- ——————————–

3- fo’o dk ,slk izfl} lezkV ftldk vfLrRo i`Fkoh ds fy;s izlUurk
dk mnkgj.k gSA
4- ml ‘kkgh njckj dk ,d fo’kky uokc gS tk [k+kd+ku ¼phuh ‘kkldksa
dh mikf/k½ tSlk lkSHkkX;o’k vkSj }rh; Q+x+dqj ¼phuh ‘kkldksa dh
mikf/k½ gSA
5- /keZ ds bl egn ¼xgokjs vFkkZr efLtn½ ds vk/kkj dh ‘kq H k frfFk
930 fgtjh iz r hr djksA
6- ,s! [kqnk lalkj ds ckn’kkg ds lkFk mldk rkt] flagklu] HkkX; vkSj
1587

thou lnSo ckdh jgs
7- ckcj lezkV lalkj esa usfd;ksa ds iq”iksa dh o”kkZ djrk jgs vkSj mls
lQ+yrk feyrh jgs
8- ‘kklu dk lykgdkj vkSj ns’k dk iz’kkld tks bl efLtn ds fd+ys
dk vk/kkj j[kus okyk gSA
frfFk dk ;g fdrk vkSj efLtn dk fooj.k fucZy xqyke QrgqYykg xkSjh
ds dEt++ksj fyfi }kjk fy[kk x;kA^^
(Hindi Translation by Court)
“1. In the name of God, the merciful, the element.

2. In the name of him who ……; may God perpetually
keep him in the world.

3. ………..

4. Such a sovereign who is famous in the world, and in
person of delight for the world.

5. In his presence one of the grandees who is another
king of Turkey and China.

6. Laid this religious foundation in the auspicious
Hijra 930.

7. O God ! May always remain the crown, throne and
life with the king.

8. May Babar always pour the flowers of happiness;
may remain successful.

9. His counsellor and minister who is the founder of
this fort masjid.

10. This poetry, giving the date and eulogy, was written
by the lazy writer and poor servant Fath-allah-Ghorl,
composer.”

(English Translation by Author)
1440. After referring the aforesaid inscriptions and text,
Fuhrer on page 68, Chapter X has made the following
observations:

1588

“The old temple of Ramachandra at Janamasthanam must
have been a very fine one, for may of its columns have been
used by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar’s
masjid. These are of strong, close-grained, dark-coloured
or black stone, called by the natives kasauti, “touch-stone
slate,” and carved with different devices. They are from
seven to eight feet long, square at the base, centre and
capital, and round or octagonal intermediately.”

1441. The second extremely relied work is “Babur-
Nama” by A.S. Beveridge (first published in 1921) (reprinted
in LPP 1989, 1997, 2000), two volumes in a single bound book
(Book No. 6). Besides the book itself, extract of some of the
pages of the said book (of different editions) have also been
filed by the parties which are exhibits as under:

(i) Paper No. 78 A-2/ 21-24 (Ex. J5, Suit-4) (Register
Volume 13, page 39-45)

(ii) Paper No. 87 B-1/ 7 (Ex. J8, Suit-4)

(iii) Paper No. 87 B-1/ 8 (Ex. J9, Suit-4)

(iv) Paper No. C2-163/ 1-2 (Ex. J13, Suit-4) (Register
Vol. 34 page no. 73-74)

(v) Paper No. 43A1/ 22-24 (Ex. T3, Suit-4) (Register
Vol. 18 page 45-49)

(vi) Paper No. C2-156/ 1-5 (Ex. Q2, Suit-5) (Register
Vol. 34 page 37-45)

(vii) Paper No. 107C1/ 71-74 (Ex.16, Suit-5) (Register
20 page 145-159)
1442. Appendix U at page LXXVII, LXXVIII and LXXIX
refers to two such inscriptions, one inside the mosque and
another outside the mosque. Photocopy of the aforesaid pages of
Appendix U have been placed on record as Exhibit T3 (Suit-4)
1589

(Paper No. 43A-1/22-24), (Register 18 page 45-49). It appears
from Appendix U that she got the text of the two inscriptions
through the Deputy Commissioner of Fyzabad on an enquiry
made by her husband about two inscriptions mentioned by
several Gazetteers said to be existed on the Babar mosque at
Ayodhya. However, at the bottom, note 2, she says that while
reproducing the text a few slight changes in the turm of
expression have been made for clearness sake. The text of the
inscription inside the mosque as quoted in Babar-Nama by
A.S. Beveridge is as under:

‫بفرمودہ شاہ بابر کہ عدلش‬
‫بنایست تأ کاخ گردوں ُملقی‬
‫بنا کرد ایں ُمہبط ُقدسیاں‬
‫امیر سعادت نشان میر باقی‬
‫بود خیر باقی چو سال بنایش‬
‫عیاں شد کہ گفتم بود خیر باقی‬
**¼1½ cQjewn&,&’kkgs ckcj fd vny’k] fcukbLr ck&dk[k+ xjnwW
eqykdh+A
¼2½ fcuk dnZ&,&egcrs dqnfl;ka jk vehjs lvknr fu’kka ehj ckd+h
¼3½ cqon [kSjs ckd+h o lkys fcukb’k v;ka ‘kqn pwa xqQre cqon [k+Sj
ckd+h**
(Hindi Transliteration by Court)
**1- lezkV ckcj ds vkns’kkuqlkj ftldk U;k; ,d ,slh bekjr gS tks
vkdk’k ds egy ls tk feyh gSA
2- HkkX;oku uokc ehj ckd+h us Qfj’rksa ds mrjus ds bl LFkku dh
vk/kkj f’kyk j[khA
3- blds vk/kkj dk o”kZ pwafd ,d [kSj ckd+h ¼’kk’or HkykbZ½ gSA vr% esjk
;g dFku Li”V gqvk **coqn [kSj ckd++h** ¼;g Hkyk dkjukek lnSo ckdh
jgs½^^
(Hindi Translation by Court)
“(1) By the command of the Emperor Babur whose justice
1590

is an edifice reaching up to the very height of the heavens.
(2) The good-hearted Mir Baqi built this alighting place
of angles.

(3) It will remain an everlasting bounty, and (hence) the
date of its erection became manifest from my words: It will
remain an everlasting bounty.” (E.T.C.)
1443. The text of the inscription outside the mosque
quoted in Beveridge’s “Babar-Nama” is as under:

‫کہ خالق جملہ عالم لمکانی‬ ‫بنام أنکہ داناھست اکبر‬
‫کہ سرور انبیائ دو جہانی‬ ‫درود مصطف ٰی بعد ازستایش‬
‫فسانہ در جہاں بابر قلندر کہ شد در دورگیتی کامرانی‬
**1- cukes vkafd nkuk gLr vdcj
fd [+kkfyd+ tqeyk vkye ykedkuh
2- nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt+ lrk;’k
fd ljoj vafc;k&,&nks tgkuh
3- Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj d+yUnj
fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh**
(Hindi Transliteration)
**1- mlds uke ls tks lcls egku cqf}eku gS tks lkjs lalkj dk
L=”Vk ,oa LFkku dh dSn ls eqDr gS
2- mldh iz’kalk ds ckn eksgEen eqLrQk lYyYykgks vySfg olYye ij
n:n gks tks nksuksa lalkj ds ufc;ksa ds ljnkj gSaA
3- ckcj dyanj dk ;g pjpk lkjs lalkj esa O;kid gS fd og ,d
lQy lezkV gSaA**
(Hindi Translation)
“1. In the name of One who is Great (and) Wise (and) who
is Creator of the whole world and is free from the bondage
of space.

2. After His praise, peace and blessings be on Prophet
Muhammad, who is the head of all the Prophets in both the
worlds.

1591

3. In the world, it is widely talked about Qalandar Babur
that he is a successful emperor.” (E.T.C.)
1444. With respect to the second inscription that is outside
the mosque, the Beveridge said that it is incomplete.

1445. The third set of text of inscription we are confronted
with, is that published in “Epigraphia Indica-Arabic &
Persian Supplement (In continuation of Epigraphia Indo-
Moslemica) 1964 and 1965” reprinted 1987 published by the
Director General Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.
On page 49, the chapter begins with the heading “Inscriptions of
Emperor Babur” said to be written by the Late Maulvi M.
Ashraf Husain and edited by Z.A.Desai. Editor’s note in the
aforesaid Chapter is of some importance:

“A rough draft of this article by the author, who was my
predecessor, was found among sundry papers in my office.
At the time of his retirement in 1953, he had left a note
saying that it might be published after revision by his
successor. Consequently, the same is published here after
incorporation of fresh material and references and also,
extensive revision and editing. The readings have been also
checked, corrected and supplemented with the help of my
colleague, Mr. S.A.Rahim, Epigraphical Assistant,-Editor.”

1446. On page 58 under sub-chapter VIII-X, “Inscriptions
Dated A.H. 935, from Ajodhya”, the author has referred to three
inscriptions said to have existed at Babur’s mosque. The author’s
comments about those inscriptions are:

“These three records are from Ajyodhya, in Fyzabad
district of Uttar Pradesh. Ajodhya, called Ayodhya in
ancient works, is a place of great antiquity. It was the
earliest capital of the kingdom of Kosala in the later Vedic
1592

period, which may be traced down to 600 B.C. In the fifth
and sixth centuries after Christ, the Gupta dynasty ruled
over it and called it Saket, by which name it is also known
in the Ramayana. From the seventh century onwards, a
period of neglect ensued and according to Muslim
historians, parties enjoyed hunting in its vicinity.”

The chief fame of Ajodhya lies in its being the birth-

place of Sri Rama, the deified son of Raja Dasaratha and
hero of the Ramayana. At the Muslim conquest, three
important temples are reported to have existed here, viz.
Janmasthana or birth-place Temple, the Treta-ki-Thakur or
the place where Sri Rama performed a great sacrifice in
commemoration of which he set up images of himself and
his wife Sita, and the Svargadvaram or Rama-Darbar,
which is believed to be the place where he was cremated.
The second and third are popularly believed to have been
pulled down by Aurangzeb, and on the site of the first the
present Baburi mosque is stated to have been built. The
supposition is apparently anachronistic inasmuch as
Aurangzeb was born about a century after A.H. 935, the
date of Babur’s record, and so the demolition could not
have taken place so late.

The Baburi-Masjid, which commands a picturesque
view from the riverside, was constructed according to
A.Fuhrer in A.H. 930 (1523-24 A.D.) but his chronology,
based upon incorrect readings of inscriptions supplied to
him, is erroneous. Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi only in
A.H. 933 (1526 A.D.), and moreover, the year of
construction, recorded in two of the three inscriptions
studied below, is clearly A.H. 935 (1528-29 A.D.). Again, it
1593

was not built by Mir Khan as stated by him. The order for
building the mosque seems to have been issued during
Babur’s stay at Ajodhya in A.H. 934 (1527-28 A.D.), but
no mention of its completion is made in the Babur Nama.
However, it may be remembered that his diary for the year
A.H. 934 (1527-28 A.D.) breaks off abruptly, and throws
the reader into the dark in regard to the account of Oudh.

The mosque consists of three compartments, each
crowned by a dome. The squinch-arches and stalactite
pendentives turn each aisle of the prayer-chamber into a
squarish room. The drums of the domes inside were
originally relieved by arched recesses, and the central
dome was embellished with ornamental incised plaster
discs, but the present domes were only reconstructed in
the thirties of this century and are devoid of any original
features.

The mosque contains a number of inscriptions. On
the eastern facade is a chhajja, below which appears a
Quranic text and above, an inscription in Persian verse.
On the central mihrab are carved religious texts such as
the Kalima (First Creed), etc. On the southern face of the
pulpit was previously fixed a stone slab bearing a Persian
inscription in verse. There was also another inscription in
Persian verse built up into the right hand side wall of the
pulpit. Of these, the last-mentioned two epigraphs have
disappeared. They were reportedly destroyed in the
communal vandalism in 1934 A.D., but luckily, I
managed to secure an inked rubbing of one of them
from Sayyid Badru’l Hasan of Fyzabad. The present
inscription, restored by the Muslim community, is not only
1594

in inlaid Nasta’liq characters, but is also slightly different
from the original, owing perhaps to the incompetence of
the restorers in deciphering it properly.

The readings and translations of the historical
epigraphs mentioned above, except in the case of one, were
published by Fuhrer and Mrs. Beveridge, but their
readings are so incomplete, inaccurate and different from
the text that their inclusion in this article is not only
desirable but also imperative.

The epigraph studied below was inscribed on a slab
of stone measuring about 68 by 48 cm., which was built up
into the southern side of the pulpit of the mosque, but is
now lost, as stated above. It is edited here from the
estampage obtained from Sayyid Badru’l Hasan of
Fyzabad. Its three-line text consists of six verses in
Persian, inscribed in ordinary Naskh characters within
floral borders. It records the construction of the mosque by
Mir Baqi under orders from emperor Babur and gives the
year A.H. 935 (1528-29 A.D.) in a chronogram.”
1447. The inscriptions found at the southern side of the
pulpit of the mosque is said to be found inscribed on a slab of
stone measuring about 68 by 48 cm. He says that the original is
lost. The quoted inscription is one edited from the estampage
obtained from Sayyid Badru’l Hasan of Fyzabad. Further
explanation at note 4 at the bottom at page 59 given by author is
as under:

“It may be argued that since this epigraph is not quoted in
Fuhrer’s SAJ, the slab had already disappeared before he
wrote. But that is not the case, since the tablet was found
there in 1906-07 A.D. by Maulavi M. Shuhaib of the office
1595

of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra
(Annual Progress Report of the Office of the
Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra, for 1906-

07.”Appendix-D
1448. The first inscription’s text which author has
mentioned at plate XVII (b) is as under:

‫بنائ است بأ کاخ گردوں ملقی‬ ‫بفرمودہ شاہ بابر کہ عدَلس‬
‫امیر سعادت نشاں میر باقی‬ ‫بنا کردہ ایں ُمہبط ُقدسیاں‬
‫عیاں شد چو گفتم بود خیر باقی‬ ‫بود خیر باقی و سال بنایش‬
**¼1½ cQjewn&,&’kkg ckcj fd vny’k]
fcukbsLr ck&dk[k+ xjnwW eqykdh+A
¼2½ fcuk dnZg bZa egcrs dqnfl;ka jk
vehjs lvknr fu’kka ehj ckd+h
¼3½ cqon [kSjs ckd+h o lkys fcukb’k]
v;ka ‘kqn pwa xqQre cqon [k+Sj ckd+h**
(Hindi Transliteration)
**1- lezkV ckcj ds vkns’kkuqlkj ftldk U;k; ,d ,slh bekjr gS tks
vkdk’k ds egy ls tk feyh gSA
2- HkkX;oku uokc ehj ckd+h us Qfj’rksa ds mrjus ds LFkku dh vk/kkj
f’kyk j[khA
3- og [kSj ckdh ¼lnSo jgus okyk ,d Hkyk dkjukek½ gS vkSj mlds
vk/kkj dk o”kZ ;wa Li”V gqvk tc eSaus dgk **coqn [kSj ckd+h^^A^^
(Hindi Transliteration)
“(1) By the order of king Babur whose justice is an
edifice, meeting the palace of the sky (i.e. as high as the
sky).

(2) This descending place of the angels was built by the
fortunate noble Mir Baqi.

(3) It will remain an everlasting bounty, and (hence) the
date of its erection became manifest from my words: It will
remain an everlasting bounty.”

1596

(English Translation by Author)
1449. The Fuhrer’s inscription no. XLI which he mentions
that the same was found inside the mosque on the mimbar (right
hand side of the disputed building) has been turmed as second
inscription by Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain. It consists of three
couplets arranged in six lines. He (Hussain) clearly admits non
existence of the said inscription by observing “the epigraphical
Tablet” which was built up into right hand side wall of the pulpit,
does not exist now, and, therefore, the text of the inscription is
quoted here from Furher’s work, for the same reason, its
illustration could not be given.” Sri Husain/Desai however, did
not agree to the reading of the inscription by Fuhrer and
observed that Furher’s reading does not appear free from
mistakes.

1450. About the third inscription, on page 60/61 of the
book, the author has given narration as follows:

“The third record of Babur in the Ajodhya mosque,
comprising a fragment of eight Persian verses of mediocre
quality and a colophon, appears over the central entrances
to the prayer-chamber above the chajja. The four-line text
is executed in fairly good Naskh characters in relief amidst
floral borders, on a slab measuring about 2 m. by 55 cm.
The text is fairly well preserved, and Fuhrer must have
been misinformed to affirm that ‘a few characters of the
second and the whole third lines are completely defaced’.
The purport of the record is the same as that of the
previous epigraphs, but here an additional edifice is also
mentioned : In verse six, in line three, a fort-wall (hisar) is
said to have been built along with the mosque in A.H. 935
(1528-29 A.D.), by Mir Baqu, who is here called the second
1597

Asaf and councillor of the state.”

1451. The text of the third inscription is as under :

‫بسم اّللہ الرحمن الرحیم و بہ ثقتے‬
‫کہ خالق جملہ عالم ل مکانے‬ ‫بنام آنکہ او داناست اکبر‬
‫کہ سرور انبیا زبدہ جہاںے‬ ‫دوِر مصطفے بعد ازثنایش‬
‫کہ شد دردور گیتی کا مرانے‬ ‫فسانہ در جہان بابر قلندر‬
‫زمین راچوں مثال آسمانے‬ ‫چناں کش ہفت کشوردر گرفتہ‬
‫کہ نامش میر باقی آصف ثانے‬ ‫درآں حضرت یکی میر معظم‬
‫کزین مسجد و حصارہست بانے‬ ‫مشیر سلطنت تدبیر ملکش‬
‫کہ چتروتخت و بخت و زندگانے‬ ‫خدایا در جہاں پایندہ بادا‬
‫کہ نہصد سی پنج بود نشانے‬ ‫بناء عہد زین تاریخ میمون‬
‫تمت ہذا لتوحید و نعت و مدح و صفت نورالّلہ برھانہ خط عبدالضعیف‬
‫نحیف فتح الّلہ محمد غودے‬
**1- nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt+ luk;’k
fd ljoj vafc;k tqCnk tgkuh
2- Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj dyUnj
fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh
3- pquka d’k gQ~+r fd’koj nj fxjQ+rk
t+eha jk pwa felkys vklekuh
4- njka gt+jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt+e
fd uke’k ehj ckd+h vkLQ+ lkuh
5- eq’khjs lyrur rnchj eqyd’k
dt+ha efLtnks fglkj gLr ckuh
6- [kqnk;k nj tgka ikbUnk cknk
fd fp=ks r[+rks c[+rks ft+Unxkuh
7- fcuk;s vgns t+ha rkjh[+k eSewa
fd uqg ln lh iat cqon fu’kkuh
rEer gkt+RrkSghnq o ukr o eng o flQ+r uOojYykgq cqjgkugq [kRrs
vCnqTt+bZQ+ ughQ+ Q+rgqYykg eksgEen x+kSjhA**
(Hindi Transliteration)
**1- ml ¼[kqnk½ dh iz’kalk ds ckn eksgEen eqLrQk lYykYykgks vySfg
1598

olYye ij n:n gks tks ufc;ksa ds ljnkj vkSj nqfu;k ds loZJs”B gSA
2- ckcj dyanj dk pjpk lkjs lalkj esa gS fd og ,d lQ+y lezkV gSA
3- og ,slk lezkV gS fd ftlus lkrksa ns’kksa ij fot; izkIr dj fy;k]
vkdk’k ds leku i`Foh dks Hkh vius dCts esa dj fy;kA
4- ml ‘kkgh njckj dk ,d fo’kky uokc gS ftldk uke ehj ckdh gS
f}rh; vkflQ ¼vkflQ+ mikf/k j[krk gS½S
5- ‘kklu dk lykgdkj vkSj mlds ns’k dk iz’kkld tks bl efLtn
vkSj fdys dk vk/kkj j[kus okyk gSA
6- ,s! [kqnk lalkj esa mldk rkt] flagklu] HkkX; vkSj thou lnSo ckd+h
jgsA
7- bl ;qx ds bl bekjr dh cqfu;kn dh ‘kqHk frfFk dh fu’kkuh 935
gSA**
(Hindi Translation)
“(1) In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

And in Him is my trust.

(2) In the name of One who is Wise, Great (and) Creator
of all the universe (and) is spaceless.

After His praise, blessings be upon the Chosen one (i.e. the
Prophet), who is the head of prophets and best in the
world.

The Qalandar-like (i.e. truthful) Babur has become
celebrated (lit. a story) in the world, since (in his time) the
world has achieved prosperity.

(3) (He is) such (an emperor) as has embraced (i.e.
conquered) all the seven climes of the world in the manner
of the sky.

In his court, there was a magnificent noble, named Mir
Baqi the second Asaf, councillor of his government and
administrator of his kingdom, who is the founder of this
mosque and fort-wall.

(4) O God, may he live for ever in this world, with fortune
1599

and life and crown and throne. The time of the building is
this auspicious date, of which the indication is nine
hundred (and) thirty five (A.H. 935=1528-29 A.D.).

Completed was this praise of God, of Prophet and of
king. May Allah illumine his proof. Written by the weak
writer and humble creature, Eathu’llah Muhammad
Ghori.”

(English Translation by Author)
1452. PW-15, Sushil Srivastava in his book “The
Disputed Mosque-A Historical Enquiry” published in 1991 by
Vistaar Publications, New Delhi has also given text of two
inscriptions at page 86 of the book which are as under:

(A) Inscription above the pulpit inside the mosque
‫بفرمودہ شاہ بابر کہ عدلش‬
‫بنایست تأ کاخ گردوں ُملقی‬
‫بنا کرد ایں ُمہبط ُقدسیاں‬
‫امیر سعادت نشان میر باقی‬
‫بود خیر باقی چو سال بنایش‬
‫عیاں شد کہ گفتم بود خیر‬
**c Qjewn;s ‘kkg ckcj fd vny’k]
fcuk;sLr rk dk[ks xnwZa eqykdhA
fcuk dnZ bZa eqgcrs dqnfl;ka]
vehjs lvknr fu’kku ehj ckdhA
cqon [kSjs ckdh! Pkw lkys fcuk;’k]
v;ka ‘kqn fd xqQ~re cqon [kSj ckdhA**
(Hindi Transliteration by Author)
**’kkg ckcj ds vkns’kkuqlkj ftldk U;k;]
,d ,slh ,ekjr gS tks vkdk’k dh ÅapkbZ rd igqaprh gSA
fuekZ.k djk;k bl fQfj’rksa ds mrjus ds LFkku dks]
lkSHkkX;’kkyh vehj] ehj ckdh us]
con [kSjs ckdh ¼;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgs½ tks mlds fuekZ.k dk o”kZ
1600

gS-

;g Li”V gks x;k tks eSa dgwa fd ;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgsA**
(Hindi Transliteration by Author)
“(1) By the order of king Babar whose justice is an edifice
meeting the pace of sky (i.e. as high as the sky).
(2) this descending place of the angels was built by the
fortunate noble Mir Baqi.

(3) it will remain an everlasting bounty and (hence) the
date of its erection became manifest from my words: it will
remain an everlasting bounty.” (English Translation by
Author)
(B) Inscription at the entrance of the mosque i.e. the
outer inscription
‫بنام اں کہ دانا ہست اکبر‬
‫کہ خالق جملہ عالم لمکانی‬
‫درود مصطف ٰی بعد ازستایش‬
‫کہ سرور انبیائ دو جہانی‬
‫فسانہ در جہاں بابر قلندر‬
‫کہ شد در دورگیتی کامرانی‬
**cukes vkafd nkuk gLr vdcj
fd [kkfyd tqeyk vkye ykedkuh
nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt lrk;’k
fd ljoj vafc;k;s nks tgkuh
Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj dyUnj
fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh**
(Hindi Transliteration)
**1- mlds uke ls tks lcls egku cqf}eku gS tks lkjs lalkj dk
lz”Vk ,oa LFkku dh dSn ls eqDr gS
2- mldh iz’kalk ds ckn eksgEen eqLrQk lYyYykgks vySfg olYye ij
n:n gks tks nksuksa tgka esa ufc;ksa ds ljnkj gSaA
3- ckcj dyanj dk ppkZ lalkj esa gS tks lalkj esa ,d lQy lezkV gqvk
1601

gSA**
(Hindi Translation)
“1. In the name of One who is Great (and) Wise (and) who
is Creator of the whole world and is free from the bondage
of space.

2. After His praise, peace and blessings be on Prophet
Muhammad, who is the head of all the Prophets in both the
worlds.

3. The world has the house of Qalandar Babur, who has
been a successful emperor in the world.” (E.T.C.)
1453. The text of two inscriptions has also been given in
Appendix “Gha” on page 659 and 660, “Mugalkalin Bharat-
Babar (1526-1530 AD)” translated by Syed Athar Abbas Rizvi
(first published in 1960 and in 2010 published for first time by
Rajkamal Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi). The photocopy of
Appendix D (Parishisht Gha) page 659 and 660 of the above
book along with its title page has been filed as Exhibit 91 (Suit-

4) (Register 16, Pages 164-166) and the same reads as under:

(A) ‫بفرمودہ شاہ بابر کہ عدلش‬
‫بنایست تأ کاخ گردوں ُملقی‬
‫بنا کرد ایں ُمہبط ُقدسیاں‬
‫امیر سعادت نشان میر باقی‬
‫بود خیر باقی چو سال بنایش‬
‫عیاں شد کہ گفتم بود خیر‬
*c Qjewn;s ‘kkg ckcj fd vny’k]
fcuk;sLr rk dk[ks xnwZa eqykdhA
fcuk dnZ bZa eqgcrs dqnfl;ka]
vehjs lvknr fu’kku ehj ckdhA
cqon [kSjs ckdh! Pkw lkys fcuk;’k]
v;ka ‘kqn fd xqQ~re cqon [kSj ckdhA**
1602

(Hindi Transliteration by Author)
**’kkg ckcj ds vkns’kkuqlkj ftldk U;k;]
,d ,slh ,ekjr gS tks vkdk’k dh ÅapkbZ rd igqaprh gSA
fuekZ.k djk;k bl fQfj’rksa ds mrjus ds LFkku dks]
lkSHkkX;’kkyh vehj] ehj ckdh us]
con [kSjs ckdh ¼;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgs½ tks mlds fuekZ.k dk o”kZ
gS-

;g Li”V gks x;k tks eSa dgwa fd ;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgsA**
(Hindi Translation by Author)
“(1) By the order of king Babar whose justice is an edifice
meeting the pace of sky (i.e. as high as the sky).
(2) This descending place of the angels was built by the
fortunate noble Mir Baqi.

(3)It will remain an everlasting bounty and (hence) the date
of its erection became manifest from my words: it will
remain an everlasting bounty.” (E.T.C.)
(B) ‫بنام انکہ دانا ھست اکبر‬
‫کہ خالق جملہ علم ل مکانی‬
‫درود مصطف ٰی بعد اذ ستایش‬
‫کہ سرور انبیای دو جہانی‬
‫فسانہ در جھاں بابر کلندر‬
‫کہ شد در دور گیتی کامرانی‬
^^ cuke vkafd nkuk gLr vdcj]
fd [kkfyds tqeyk vkye yk edkuhA
n:ns eqLrQk ckn vt lrkb’k]
fd ljojs vfEc;k;s nks tgkuhA
Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj dyUnj]
fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xsrh dkejkuhA**
(Hindi Transliteration by Author)
**mlds uke ls tks fd egku~ Kkuh gS]
tks leLr lalkj dk l`”Vk vkSj fcuk ?kj dk gSA
1603

mldh Lrqfr ds mijkUr eqLrQk ij n:n]
tks nksuksa yksdksa ds ufc;ksa ds ljnkj gSaA
lalkj esa ppkZ gS fd ckcj dyUnj]
dky pdz esa mls lQyrk izkIr gqbZA**
(Hindi Translation by Author)
” In His name who is all wisdom,
Who is creator of the entire universe and who is abodeless.
After His praise peace be on Prophet Mohammad,
Who is the head of all the Prophets in both the worlds.
It is the talk of the world that Qalandar Babur,
Attained success with the movement of the time-wheel.”
(E.T.C.)
1454. In another book titled as “Babar” by Dr. Radhey
Shyam, first published in 1978 by Janaki Prakashan Allahabad,
the text of three inscriptions at the building in dispute in
Appendix VI, Item VIII-X at pages 505 and 506 is given as
under :

(A) ‫بفرمودہ شاہ بابر کہ عدلش‬
‫بنایست تأ کاخ گردوں ُملقی‬
‫بنا کرد ایں ُمہبط ُقدسیاں‬
‫امیر سعادت نشان میر باقی‬
‫بود خیر باقی چو سال بنایش‬
‫عیاں شد کہ گفتم بود خیر باقی‬
*c Qjewn;s ‘kkg ckcj fd vny’k]
fcuk;sLr ck dk[ks xnwZa eqykdhA
fcuk dnZ bZa eqgcrs dqnfl;ka]
vehjs lvknr fu’kku ehj ckdhA
cqon [kSjs ckdh! Pkw lkys fcuk;’k]
v;ka ‘kqn fd xqQ~re cqon [kSj ckdhA**
(Hindi Transliteration)
**’kkg ckcj ds vkns’kkuqlkj ftldk U;k;]
1604

,d ,slh ,ekjr gS tks vkdk’k dh ÅapkbZ rd igqaprh gSA
fuekZ.k djk;k bl fQfj’rksa ds mrjus ds LFkku dks]
lkSHkkX;’kkyh vehj] ehj ckdh us]
con [kSjs ckdh ¼;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgs½ tks mlds fuekZ.k dk o”kZ
gS-

;g Li”V gks x;k tks eSa dgwa fd ;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgsA**
(Hindi Translation)
“(1) By the order of king Babar whose justice is an edifice
meeting the pace of sky (i.e. as high as the sky).
(2) This descending place of the angels was built by the
fortunate noble Mir Baqi.

(3) It will remain an everlasting bounty and (hence) the
date of its erection became manifest from my words: it will
remain an everlasting bounty.”

(English Translation by Author)
(B) ‫بمنشاے بابر خد یو جہاں‬
‫بشانیکہ با کاخ گردوں عناں‬
‫بناکردہ ایں خا نہ پایدار‬
‫امیر سعادت نشان میر خاں‬
‫بماندہ ہمیشہ چنیں باینش‬
‫چناں شہر یار زمین و زماں‬
**1- ce’kk;s ckcjs [kn;w tgka
clkus fd ck dk[k xjnwW bukW
2- fcuk dnkZ bZa [kku&,&ik;snkj
vehjs lvknr fu’kka ehj [kka
3- cekang ges’kk pquha ckfu;’k
pquka ‘kgfj;kjs tehuks teka**
(Hindi Transliteration)
**1- fo’o lezkV ckcj ds vkns’kkuqlkj vkdk’k tSls egy ds lekuA
2- bl lqn`<+ ?kj dk vk/kkj j[kk HkkX;oku uokc ehj [kka usA
3- mldk ,slk laLFkkid vkSj i`Foh vkSj ;qx dk ,slk lezkV lnSo ftfor
1605

jgsA”

(Hindi Translation)
“(1) Under the commands of Babar, emperor of the world,
a sky-like palace
(2) (that is to say) this strong house of God was founded by
the fortunate noble Nawab Mir Khan
(3)May ever remain such a founder of edifice, and such a
king of the world and age.” (E.T.C)

(C) ‫بسم اّللہ الرحمن الرحیم و بہ ثقتے‬

‫کہ خالق جملہ عالم ل مکانے‬ ‫بنام آنکہ او داناست اکبر‬
‫کہ سرور انبیا زبدہ جہاںے‬ ‫دوِر مصطفے بعد ازثنایش‬
‫کہ شد دردور گیتی کا مرانے‬ ‫فسانہ در جہان بابر قلندر‬
‫زمین راچوں مثال آسمانے‬ ‫چناں کش ہفت کشوردر گرفتہ‬
‫کہ نامش میر باقی آصف ثانے‬ ‫درآں حضرت یکی میر معظم‬
‫کزین مسجد و حصارہست بانے‬ ‫مشیر سلطنت تدبیر ملکش‬
‫کہ چتروتخت و بخت و زندگانے‬ ‫خدایا در جہاں پایندہ بادا‬
‫کہ نہصد سی پنج بود نشانے‬ ‫بناء عہد زین تاریخ میمون‬
‫تمت ہذا لتوحید و نعت و مدح و صفت نورالّلہ برھانہ خط عبدالضعیف‬
‫نحیف فتح الّلہ محمد غودے‬
**¼1½ fclfeYykfgjZgekfujZghe o c&fld+rh
¼2½ cukes vkafd Å nkukLr vdcj & fd [k+kfyd+ tqeyk vkye
ykedkuh
nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt+ luk;’k & fd ljoj vafc;k tqCnk tgkuh
Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj d+yUnj & fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh
¼3½ pquka d’k gQ~Qr fd’koj nj fxjQ+rk & t+eha jk pwa felkys
vklekuh
njka gt+jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt+e & fd uke’k ehj ckd+h vkLQ+ lkuh
eq’khjs lyrur rnchj eqyd’k & dt+ha efLtnks fglkj gLr ckuh
¼4½ [kqnk;k nj tgka ikbUnk cknk & fd fp=ks r[+rks c[+rks ft+Unxkuh
fcuk;s vgns t+ha rkjh[k+ eSewa & fd uqg ln lh iat cqon fu’kkuh
rEer gkt+RrkSghn o ukr eng o flQ+r uOojYykgq cqjgkugq [+kRrs
1606

vCnqTt+bZQ+
ughQ+ Q+ugqYykg eksgEen x+kSjhA**
(Hindi Transliteration)
**vYykg ds uke ls tks vR;Ur d:.kke; vkSj n;koku gS] vkSj mlds
Hkjksls ij
1- mlds uke ls tks lcls egku cqf}eku gS tks lkjs lalkj dk l`”Vk ,oa
LFkku dh dSn ls eqDr gS
2- mldh iz’kalk ds ckn eksgEen eqLrQk lYyYykgks vySfg olYye ij
n:n gks tks ufc;ksa ds ljnkj vkSj lalkj ds loZJs”B O;fDr gSA
3- ckcj dyanj dk pjpk lkjs lalkj esa O;kid gS fd og ,d lQy
lezkV gqvk gSA
4- og ,slk lezkV gS fd ftlus lkrksa ns’kksa ij fot; izkIr dj fy;k]
i`Foh dks Hkh vkdk’k ds leku dCts esa dj fy;kA
5- ml ‘kkgh njckj dk ,d fo’kky uokc gS ftldk uke ehj ckdh
f}rh; vkflQ gS
6- ‘kklu dk lykgdkj vkSj mlds ns’k dk iz’kkld tks bl efLtn
vkSj fdys dk f’kykfu;kl djus okyk gSA
7- ,s! [kqnk lalkj esa mldk rkt] flagklu] HkkX; vkSj thou lnSo ckd+h
jgsA
8- bl ;qx ds bl bekjr dh cqfu;kn dh ‘kqHk frfFk dh fu’kkuh 935
gSA**
(Hindi Translation)
“In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the merciful,
and in Him is my trust.

(1) In the name of One who is Wise, Great and Creator of
all the universe and is spaceless.

(2) After he praise, blessing be upon the Choosen one (i.e.
the Prophet) who is the head of the Prophets and best in
the world.

(3) The Qalandar like Babar has attained fame in the
whole world to the effect that he has been a successful
1607

emperor.

(4) He is such an emperor as has conquered all the seven
climes of the world and also captured the earth as in case
of sky.

(5) In that royal court there was a magnificent noble
named Mir Baqi, the second Asaf.

(6) (He is) councillor of the Government and administrator
of his kingdom, who is the founder of this mosque and fort-
wall.

(7) O! God, may he live for ever in this world, with crown
and throne and fortune and life.

(8) The time of this building of this age is this auspicious
date, of which the indication is 935.” (E.T.C.)
1455. From perusal of the text of the inscription said to be
found inside the mosque i.e., the 6-lines inscription it is evident
that the text quoted by Fuhrer, Beveridge and Maulvi F. Ashraf
Hussain has apparent and demonstrable differences. The first
line of the text by the three reads as under:

        *cea'kk;s ckcj [kn;w tgka"                 (Fuhrer)
        **cQjewn&,&'kkgs ckcj fd vny'k]**         (Beveridge)

**cQjewn&,&’kkg ckcj fd vny’k]** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)
1456. Similarly, we find difference in line 2 which is
demonstrated as under:

**c’kkus fd ck dk[k+ xjnwW buk a ** (Fuhrer)
**fcukbLr ck&dk[k+ xjnwW eqykdh+A** (Beveridge)
**fcukbsLr ck&dk[k+ xjnwW eqykdh+A** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)
1457. The third line is also not the same.

**fcuk dnkZ &,&[+k ku&,&ik;sn kj* * (Fuhrer)
**fcuk dnZ&,&egcrs dqnfl;ka jk** (Beveridge)
**fcuk dnZg bZa egcrs dqnfl;ka jk** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)
1608

1458. The fourth line of Fuhrer is different than what is
contained in Beveridge and Maulvi Ashraf Hussain as is evident
from the following:

**vehjs lvknr fu’kka ehj [kka** (Fuhrer)
**vehjs lvknr fu’kka ehj ckd+h** (Beveridge)
**vehjs lvknr fu’kka ehj ckd+h** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)
1459. Fifth line of all the three is different as demonstrated
below:

**cekun ges’ kk pq u k a ckfu;’k** (Fuhrer)
**cqon [kSjs ckd+h fd rkjh[+k efLtn]** (Beveridge)
**cqon [kSjs ckd+h o lkys fcukb’k]** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)
1460. Sixth line of Beveridge and Maulvi F. Ashraf
Hussain is the same but different from Fuhrer as seen below:

**pq u k a ‘kgfj;kj s t+e huk s t+e k a ** (Fuhrer)
**v;ka ‘kqn pwa xqQre cqon [k+Sj ckd+h** (Beveridge)
**v;ka ‘kqn pwa xqQre cqon [k+Sj ckd+h** (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
1461. The next inscription which according to Fuhrer was
a ten-line Persian poetry, Beveridge could get only three lines
thereof and termed incomplete, Maulvi M.Ashraf Husain
however found complete and running in about 10/11 lines. The
distinction therein are:

Line-1 ^^fclfeYykfgjZgekfujZghe” (Fuhrer)
No such line is found in Beveridge’s text.
^*fclfeYykfgjZgekfujZghe o fcgh fldrh**
(Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)
Line-2 ^^cukes vka fd——————————^^ (Fuhrer)
**cukes vkafd nkuk gLr vdcj** (Beveridge)
^^cukes vkafd Å nkukLr vdcj**
(Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
Line-3 ^^dqun [kkfyd+ cdyes tkosnkuh** (Fuhrer)
1609

^^fd [+kkfyd+ tqeyk vkye ykedkuh** (Beveridge)
**fd [kkfyd tqeyk vkye ykedkuh**
(Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
Line- 4: completely defaced in the text of Furher but
Beveridge and Maulvi F.Ashraf have given the following
text:

^^nw: n eqLrQk ckn vt+ lrk;’k** (Beveridge)
^^nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt+ luk;’k** (Maulvi F.Ashraf
Hussain)
Line-5 : Completely defaced in Furher’s text but in
Beveridge’s and Maulvi F.Ashraf’s text it is quoted as
under:

^^fd ljoj vafc;k&,&nks tgkuh** (Beveridge)
^^fd ljoj vafc;k tqCnk tgkuh** (Maulvi F.Ashraf
Hussain)
Line-6 : Completely defaced in Furher’s text but in
Beveridge’s and Maulvi F.Ashraf’s text it is quoted as
under:

^^Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj d+yUnj** (Beveridge)
^^lkuk nj tgka ckcj dyUnj** (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
Line-7 : Completely defaced in Furher’s text but in
Beveridge’s and Maulvi F.Ashraf’s text it is quoted as
under:

^*fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh** (Beveridge)
^*fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh*^ (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
1462. After Line-7 Beveridge does not give any further
text but has given remark that the inscription was incomplete
but Furher and Maulvi F.Ashraf Husain have given the
following text:

Line-8 ^^pquka ‘kkga’ kg s e’kgwj s vd+y he ** (Fuhrer)
1610

^^pquka d’k gQ~+r fd’koj nj fxjQ+rk**
(Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
Line-9 ^^t+eha jk pwa fu’kkus ‘kknekuh** (Fuhrer)
^^t+eha jk pwa felkys vklekuh** (Maulvi F.Ashraf
Hussain)
Line-10 *^njka gt++jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt++e** (Fuhrer)
^^njka gt+jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt+e** (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
Line-11 ^^fd [k +k dk + a & nkSyrk s Q+x +Q w j s& lk uh ** (Fuhrer)
*^fd uke’k ehj ckd+h vkLQ+ lkuh**
(Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
Line-12 …………………………. (Fuhrer)
*eq’khjs lyrur rnchj eqyd’k*^ (Maulvi F.Ashraf
Hussain)
Line-13 …………………………. (Fuhrer)
^^dt+ha efLtnks fglkj gLr ckuh**
(Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
Line-14 …………………………. (Fuhrer)
^^[kqnk;k nj tgka ikbUnk cknk** (Maulvi F.Ashraf
Hussain)
Line-15 …………………………. (Fuhrer)
^*fd fp=ks r[+rks c[+rks ft+Unxkuh**
(Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
Line-16 *^^fcuk;s egns nh a rkjh[+ksa eSewa** (Fuhrer)
^^fcuk;s vgns t+h a rkjh[+k eSewa**
(Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
Line-17 *uqg ln lh cqon fgtjr cnkuh** (Fuhrer)
*fd uqg ln lh iat cqon fu’kkuh**
(Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
Line-18 …………………………. (Fuhrer)
*rEer gkt+RrkSghnq o ukr o eng o flQ+r uOojYykgq
1611

cqjgkugq [kRrs vCnqTt+bZQ+ ughQ+ Q+rgqYykg eksgEen
x+kSjhA** (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)

1463. We are extremely perturbed by the manner in which
Ashraf Husain/Desai have tried to give an impeccable authority
to the texts of the alleged inscriptions which they claim to have
existed on the disputed building though repeatedly said that the
original text has disappeared. The fallacy and complete
misrepresentation on the part of author in trying to give colour
of truth to this text is writ large from a bare reading of the write
up. We are really at pains to find that such blatant fallacious
kind of material has been allowed to be published in a book
published under the authority of ASI, Government of India,
without caring about its accuracy, correctness and genuineness
of the subject. We have already given write up of Ashraf
Husain. Firstly, he said that the mistake was committed in
number of inscriptions. He claims that on the eastern façade is a
Chhajja below which appears a Quranic text and above thereto
an inscription in Persian verse. Then he says that on the central
mehrab are carved religious text such as Kalma (First creed),
etc. Then he says that on the southern face of the pulpit
previously there affixed a stone slab bearing a Persian
inscription in verse and another inscription in Persian verse was
built up into right hand side wall of the pulpit. Both these
inscriptions i.e., the one claimed to be on the southern face of
the pulpit and the other on the right hand side wall of the pulpit
are said to be non-available by observing “of these the last
mentioned two epigraphs have disappeared”. The time of
disappearance according to Maulvi Ashraf Husain was 1934
A.D. when a communal riot took place at Ayodhya. However,
he claimed to have got an inked rubbing on one of the two
1612

inscriptions from Syed Badrul Hasan of Faizabad. The
whereabouts of Syed Badrul Hasan , who he was, what was his
status, in what way and manner he could get that ink rubbing of
the said inscription and what is the authenticity to believe it to
be correct when original text of the inscription are not known.

There is nothing to co-relate the text he got as the correct text of
the inscription found in the disputed building claimed to have
lost in 1934.

1464. He also admits that the existing inscription which was
restored by Muslim community was ‘inlaid nastaliq’ character
but simultaneously says that the restored inscription is slightly
different from the original and this distinction he attributes
perhaps to the incompetence of the restorer in deciphering it
properly. When the original was already lost and there was
nothing to verify the text of restored inscription with the
original, neither the restored one can be relied upon nor it is
understandable as to how he could have any occasion to
compare the restored one with the alleged nonest/lost original
one. It appears that the text which he got from Syed Badrul
Hasan of Faizabad treated by him to be correct and taking it as
the original text he has proceeded accordingly. It is also
interesting to note that in the footnote realising this difficulty at
item no.4, he has said that this tablet was found in 1906-07 A.D.
by Maulvi M. Suhaib of the office of Regional Archaeological
Surveyor, Northern Survey (Annual progress report of the
office of Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Survey Agra for
1906-1907), Appendix ‘D’). We however, find it difficult to
understand this reference if the inscription was fixed on the wall
of the disputed building, the question of finding tablet by
Maulvi M.Ashraf Husain does not arise. If what he intends to
1613

suggest is that the inscription was noticed by Maulvi M. Suhaib
in 1906-07 and he has made some reference in the annual
progress report of 1906-1907, the text of the inscription if was
published in the said report, the author ought to have taken
material from such report and not from a stranger namely Syed
Badrul Hasan of Faizabad whose credentials and authenticity is
unknown and whether any such person actually existed or not,
even this is doubtful, as has been argued by Sri Mishra and we
find substance therein.

1465. The matter does not rest here. Ashraf Husain has
critically commented upon the reading of one or two
inscriptions as published by Fuhrer and Beveridge stating that
“….their readings are so incomplete, inaccurate and different
from the text that their inclusion in this article is not only
desirable but also imperative.”

1466. Once the alleged two inscriptions are lost and one of
such inscriptions according to Sri Husain was found by Fuhrer
who has published its text, without having either the inscription
itself with him (Husain) or the authenticated stampage of the
text of such inscription, how there could be any occasion for
Husain to claim that the text given by Fuhrer is incorrect.
Similarly, he also could not have any occasion to compare that
text with that of Beveridge. Admittedly, the date of publication
of such inscription by Fuhrer and A.S. Beveridge is before the
date of disappearance i.e. 1934 as alleged by Ashraf Hussain.
Therefore, so far as Fuhrer and Beveridge are concerned they
could have an occasion to peruse the inscription that was
installed before 1934 but so far as Maulvi M. Ahsraf Husain is
concerned, this occasion in his own words, could not have
arisen. The text, description and whatever had been set up by
1614

Ashraf Husain in respect of the above inscription is unbelievable
and lacks trustworthiness. We are constrained to observe at this
stage that in the matter of historical events and that too, when it
bears a religious importance and the matter has also seen serious
disputes between two communities, the persons who are
connected with history etc. must behave responsibly and before
making any write up, should check up, cross check and verify
very carefully what they are writing since the consequences of
their write up may be dangerous and irreparable.
1467. We move on to one more aspect. Even the text of the
inscription which Ashraf Husain has given in plate 17(b), he
says that the same is not what was printed in the existing
inscription as restored by Muslim community after 1934 riots
but the same is an added version from the stampage obtained
from Syed Badrul Hasan of Faizabad. At this stage, we are
unable to compare even the restored text of the inscription as the
same is not available and Maulvi M. Ashraf Hussain instead of
giving the existing text as it is of the restored inscription has
changed it according to his whims and caprices.
1468. Coming to the authenticity of the text of the two
inscriptions given by Beveridge, we find that she herself had
neither read the said texts nor visited Ayodhya at any point of
time. She claims to have received copy of the text through some
correspondence made by her husband, Henry Beveridge, an
I.C.S. Officer in British India Government.
1469. The text of two inscriptions are the copy which she
claims to have received from Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad
on an inquiry made by her husband. In this regard at page 656,
foot note 3 at the bottom she has said:

“that he spent a few days near Aud (Ajodhya) to settle its
1615

affairs. The D.G. Of Fyzbaa (H.E. Nevill) p.173 says “In
1528 AD, Babur came to Ajodhya (Aud) and halted a week.
The destroyed the ancient temple” (marking the birth-place
of Rama) “and on its site built a mosque, still known as
Babur’s Mosque….. It has two inscriptions, one on the
outside, one on the pulpit; both are in Persian; and bear
the date 935 AH.” This date may be that of the competition
of the building.–(Corrigendum:-On f.339 n. 1, I have too
narrowly restricted the use of the name Sarju. Babur used
it to describe what the maps of Arrowsmith and Johnson
shew, and not only what the Gazetteer of India Map of the
United Provinces does,. It applies to the Sarda (f.339) as
Babur uses it when writing of the fords.”.

1470. Perhaps she went through the description of the
disputed site in the light of the observations made by Sri Nevill
who wrote 1904 -1905 Gazetteer (Supra). Whether the alleged
text made available to her by the Dy. Commissioner, Faizabad
was an ink stampage of the text of the alleged two inscriptions
or it was obtained by him through somebody else by reading the
contents or the manner in which the said text was collected, is
not known. Rather there appears to be something otherwise.
Footnote 2 on page lxxvii , Appendics ‘U’ of Baburnama
(Memoirs of Babur) shows that some changes were made by
Beveridge also:

“2. A few slight changes in the turn of expressions
have been made for clearness sake.”

1471. To what extent the corrections have been made and
what was necessity thereof is not ascertainable. Why a verbatim
reproduction could not be made is also not understandable. At
least there is nothing on record enabling us to examine this
1616

aspect of the matter. The second inscription, text whereof is
quoted at page lxxviii, Appendices ‘U’ of Baburnama by
Beveridge, we find that the same is incomplete and the reason
assigned by Beveridge is that it is not now legible. The text of
second inscription was not legible to Beveridge whose book was
first published in 1914/1921. We fail to understand how its
complete text could be available to Maulvi M. Ashraf Husain
after more than forty years thereafter who got it published in
Epigraphia Indica -Arabic and Persian Supplement 1965
(supra).

1472. From the text of A. Fuhrer the period of construction
of the disputed building is not 1528 AD and it also does not say
that the same was built by Mir Baqi. The inscription no. XLI,
line four mentions the name of Mir Khan and inscription no.
XLII shows the period of construction as Hijra 930. The text
given by Sri Sushil Srivastava, PW 15 in his book “The
Disputed Mosque-A Historical Enquiry” is based on the text of
two inscriptions given by A.S. Beveridge and Prof. Radhey
Shyam as is evident from page 78-79 of his statement. Athar
Hussain’s text is the reproduction from Beveridge. Dr. Radhey
Shyam has taken the text of three inscriptions from M. Ashrat
Hussain’s write-up published in Epigraphia Indica-Arabic and
Persian Supplement in 1964-65.

1473. The apparent distinction, as appear from Fuhrer’s
reading of the inscription, is:

(a) There is no mention of word of “honour” before the
name of Babar.

(b) Instead of “Mir Baqi” it mentions “Mir Khan”.

(c) There is no use of the word “mosque” but it
mentions “lofty building” and also shows no
1617

dedication to Almighty.

This is in respect to the first inscription.

1474. Then comes the second inscription, where the marked
distinction is the date i.e. 930 A.H. (1523 AD). It is a well
known fact that in 1523 AD Babar was not in Hindustan but in
Kandhar/Kabul.

1475. Archaeological Survey of India also published a book
“The Monumental Antiquities And Inscriptions In The North-
Western Provinces And Oudh” described and arranged by A.
Fuhrer published by the Superintendent, Government Press, N.-
W. Provinces and Oudh, 1891. Copy of the frontispiece as well
as pages No.295, 296 and 297 thereof have been filed as Paper
No.107C1/33-36 i.e. Ex.9, Suit-5 (Register Vol.20, Pages 67-

73). We have the entire book published in 1967 by Rameshwar
Singh, Indological Book House, Varanasi (Book No.94). Pages
No.295-297 are verbatim the same filed as paper Nos.107C1/34-

36. About construction of building in dispute, on page 297 it
says, “It is locally affirmed that at the Musalman conquest there
were three important Hindu temples at Ayodhya; these were the
Janamasthanam, the Svargadvaram, and the Treta-ke-Thakur.
On the first of these Mir Khan built a masjid, in A.H. 930,
during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name.” The
reference has been made to Archaeological Reports (New
Series), Vol.1, page 67.

1476. Ex. 81 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 216C1/1-21) consists of
certain pages from book “Babarnama” translated by Yugjeet
Navalpuri, first published 1974, third publication 1996, 1998
and reprint 2002 by Sahitya Academy, New Delhi. The Editorial
Note says that the book consist of Hindi translation by
Navalpuri of F.G. Talbot’s Edition of the “Memoirs of Baber”.

1618

However, the Chapter “Introduction” running from Page 9 to 18,
pages 438 to 456 giving history from AH (1527 AD) and then
for the year AH 936, page 510 has been filed. Sri Jilani from the
above extract of the book has sought to submit that there is no
mention either of entry of Babar to Ayodhya or any act of
demolition of any temple or construction of a Mosque. For the
date of construction of the disputed building in 1528 AD, he
refers to Footnote 48 on page 447 which refers two inscriptions
at the disputed building as under :

^^48- ¼usfoy½ ^ftyk xtsfV;j Q+Stkckn* esa fy[kk gS% ^^1529 bZ0 esa
ckcj v;ks/;k ¼vo/k½ vk;k vkSj ,d lIrkg jgkA mlus izkphu eafnj
¼jke&tUeLFkku½ rqM+okdj mlds LFkku ij elftn cuokbZA – – -** bl
elftn ij nks vfHkys[k gSaA ¼1½ elftn ds Hkhrj%
^^cQ+jewn;s ‘kkfg ckcj fd vny’k cukbZLr rk dkf[k+ xjnwa eqykdh
cuk djnbZ eqgfcrs dqnfl;kWA vehjs lvknr&fu’kkWa ehj ckdh
cqon [kS+j ckd+h pq lkys cukb’k v;kWa ‘kq) fd xqQ~re cqon [kS+j ckd+h!
¼^^xxu&rqax gS U;k; dk lkS/k ftldk mlh ‘kkg ckcj dk vkns’k ikdj
cuh nsonwrksa dh ;g vorjf.kdk ! fej ehj ckd+h dks lkSHkkX; dk oj !
^cqon [kS+j ckd+h !* & dgk Li”V eSaus%^cqon [kSj ckd+h* gS fuekZ.k&oRlj!**
¼v;ks/;k ds ^f’kd+nkj*½ ehjckdh ¼’kd+koqy] ^ehM~0ck’kh* ;kuh ^gtkjk*]
¼rk’kdanh½ us ckcj ds vkns’k ij elftn cuk;h FkhA ;gkWa igyk ^cqon
[kSj ckd+h* ¾ ¼1½ ;g vPNkbZ vej jgs*] ¼2½ ^ckd+h ehj&0*½ dk
dq’kyeku gS tks lkjs lalkj dk l`”Vk ,oa
LFkku dh dSn ls eqDr gS
2- mldh iz’kalk ds ckn eksgEen eqLrQk lYyYykgks vySfg olYye ij
n:n gks tks ufc;ksa ds ljnkj vkSj lalkj ds loZJs”B O;fDr gSA
3- ckcj dyanj dk pjpk lkjs lalkj esa O;kid gS fd og ,d lQy
lezkV gqvk gSA
4- og ,slk lezkV gS fd ftlus lkrksa ns’kksa ij fot; izkIr dj fy;k]
i`Foh dks Hkh vkdk’k ds leku dCts esa dj fy;kA
5- ml ‘kkgh njckj dk ,d fo’kky uokc gS ftldk uke ehj ckdh
f}rh; vkflQ gS
6- ‘kklu dk lykgdkj vkSj mlds ns’k dk iz’kkld tks bl efLtn
vkSj fdys dk f’kykfu;kl djus okyk gSA
7- ,s! [kqnk lalkj esa mldk rkt] flagklu] HkkX; vkSj thou lnSo ckd+h
jgsA
8- bl ;qx ds bl bekjr dh cqfu;kn dh ‘kqHk frfFk dh fu’kkuh 935
gSA** (Hindi Translation)
“In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the merciful,
and in Him is my trust.

(1) In the name of One who is Wise, Great and Creator of
all the universe and is spaceless.

(2) After he praise, blessing be upon the Choosen one (i.e.

1623

the Prophet) who is the head of the Prophets and best in
the world.

(3) The Qalandar like Babar has attained fame in the
whole world to the effect that he has been a successful
emperor.

(4) He is such an emperor as has conquered all the seven
climes of the world and also captured the earth as in case
of sky.

(5) In that royal court there was a magnificent noble
named Mir Baqi, the second Asaf.

(6) (He is) councillor of the Government and administrator
of his kingdom, who is the founder of this mosque and fort-
wall.

(7) O! God, may he live for ever in this world, with crown
and throne and fortune and life.

(8) The time of this building of this age is this auspicious
date, of which the indication is 935.” (E.T.C.)
Note: The above inscription was read by Shukh
Karamatullah (D.W. 5) who climbed up the arch by means
of a ladder and ?the verses are written in Arabic
characters.”

1479. In the book Ayodhya Ka Itihas by Sri Avadhwasi
Lala Sitaram, first published in 1932, reprinted in 2001,
published by Arya Book Depot, New Delhi, the transcript of the
in-script has been mentioned at page 115/116 which is a
verbatim copy of the text quoted by A.S. Beveridge. The learned
author has given, however, totally different reasons and history
of the construction of the disputed building. There is nothing to
show the basis on which he has written the said history. Sri
Jilani has castigated the contents of this entire book of Lala
1624

Sitaram contending that neither he was a historian nor there is
any authority mentioned in his book to generate confidence for
what has been written therein, therefore, this book is not
reliable. This author retired from the office of Deputy Collector
as appearing from the Forward of his book written by Sri
Devendra Swaroop.

1480. The above discussion tells us that basically there are
three version in respect to the text or transcript of the
inscriptions fixed on the disputed building. The text available to
A.Fuhrer says that “a firmament-like lofty strong building was
erected by an auspicious noble Mir Khan under the command of
Babar in the year 930 AH i.e. 1523 AD and foundation of the
said building was laid down by the King of China and Turkey in
presence of Babar”. The transcript made available to Beveridge
reveal that “under the command of Emperor Babar, good
hearted Mir Baki built that alighting place of angels in 935 AH
i.e. 1528-29”. The last one is that of ASI report of 1964-65
edited by Z.A.Desai, the transcript whereof says that “by the
order of King Babar that descending place of Angles was built
by the fortunate noble Mir Baki”. In respect to another
inspection, Desai text says that “a lofty building and lasting
house (of God) was founded by Mir (and) Khan (Baqi)”. The
words placed within brackets are that of Mr. Husain or Dr.
Desai’s own insertion and do not find place in the text of the
inscription as such.

1481. The fourth one, which can be said to be very recent
and inspire more confidence than other is the one when pursuant
to the order of the learned Civil Judge, Faizabad, Sri A. Akhtar
Ahasan made inspection of the disputed structure on 26th March,
1946 and obtained text of two inscriptions fixed on the disputed
1625

building at that time. This text, as is reproduced in judgment
dated 30.03.1946 (Ex. A42, Suit-1) in R.S. No.29/1945 says that
in the first inscription the words are “by the order of Shah
Babar, Amir Mir Baki built the resting place of angles in 923
A.H. i.e. 1516-17 AD”. In respect to second inscription, he says
that “Mir Baki of Isphahan in 935 AH i.e. 1528-29 AD”. We
find that the reading of text of inscriptions by Civil Judge,
Faizabad was earlier than Dr. Z.A.Desai’s publication yet there
is a good variance with the text of the estampage procured and
transcribed by Desai.

1482. In the entire Babar-Nama i.e. all the translations made
by various writers, we are not informed that the words “Mir
Baki Isfahani” has been mentioned at any place. What has been
said is Baki Tashkendi and various other Bakis but not Mir Baki
Isfahani. We are informed by Sri P.N.Mishra, which is not
disputed by other learned counsels, that Taskend is a city of
Uzbekistan while Isfahan is a province of Iran.
1483. Sri Mishra, on the basis of the above facts submits that
Baki Isfahani and Baki Taskandi cannot be regarded as one and
the same person. Baki Isfahani a person not known to Babar
having not been mentioned in Babarnama could not have any
kind of authority at all in the period of Babar. It is therefore safe
to presume that it is fictitious name which adds and fortify the
argument that the inscription has been implanted later on with a
transcription which is fictitious and false and had no factual
authenticity.

1484. The above discussion raises a serious doubt over the
genuinity and authenticity of the text or transcript of the
inscriptions and the time when they were fixed on the disputed
building. To base a finding in a judicial proceeding while
1626

adjudicating a dispute of this nature, it would be improper and
against the all cannons of the principles applicable in such
matter. However, there are some more facts and material which
needs to be considered before recording a final opinion on the
matter.

1485. The very first document/historical book in this regard
is “Tuzuk-i-babri”, i.e., “Baburnama” or “daily diary of Babar”
which has been translated and published by several well known
authors and some of them are considered to be the authentic
work internationally also. Broadly the learned counsels for the
parties and the Expert Historians have also not disputed
authenticity of such work which we now propose to refer.
1486. Babur-nama (Tuzuk-i-babri) commences its
description from 899 Hizra (1493-94 AD). In the total life span
of 47 years and 10 months, the description of only 18 years of
Babur’s life is available and that too in various spans. The
period, for which the details are not available, are as under:

1. History from the birth (14th February, 1483 AD) till
Singhasanarohan Ramazan 899 Hijri (June 14, 1494 AD)

2. Description from 908 Hijri (1503 AD) till 909 Hijri
(1504 AD)

3. Description from 914 Hijri (1508 AD) till 925 Hijri
(1519 AD)

4. Description from 4 Safar 926 Hijri(15th January 1520
AD) till 30 Muharram 932 Hijri (16th November, 1525
AD)

5. Description from 13 Rajab 934 Hijri (3rd April 1528
AD) till 2 Muharram 934 Hijri (17th September, 1528 AD)

6. History of following days of 934 Hijri (1528-29 AD):

(a) 1, 2 Muharram 934 Hijri (16, 17th September
1627

1528 AD)

(b) 21 Muharram 934 Hijri (6th October 1528 AD) to
26 Muharram 934 Hijri (11th October 1528 AD)

(c) 6 Safar 934 Hijri (20th October 1528 AD) to 8
Safar 934 Hijri (22nd October 1528 AD)

(d) 11 Safar 934 Hijri (25th October 1528 AD) to 20th
Safar 934 Hijri (3rd November 1528 AD)

(e) 29 Safar 934 Hijri (12th November 1528 AD) to 8
Rabi-ul-Avval (20th November 1528 AD)

(f) 15 Rabi-ul-Avval (27th November 1528 AD) to
18 Rabi-ul-Avval (1st December 1528 AD)

(g) 24 Rabi-ul-Avval (7th December 1528 AD) to 28
Rabi-ul-Avval (11th December 1528 AD)

(h) 13 Rabi-ussani (25th December 1528 AD) till 15
Rabi-ussani (27th December 1528 AD)

(i) 6 Jamadi-ul-Avval (16th January 1529 AD) till 9
Jamadi-ul-Avval (19th January 1529 AD)

(j) 19 Shavval (25th June 1529 AD) till 30 Shavval
(6th July 1529 AD)

(k) 5 Zikad (11th July 1528 AD) till 11 Zikad (17th
July 1529 AD)

(l) 20 Zikad (27th July 1529 AD) till 4 Zilhijja (10th
August 1529 AD)

(m) 11 Zilhijja (17th August 1529 AD) till 29 Zilhijja
(4th September 1529 AD)

7. 4 Muharram 936 Hijri (8th September 1529 AD) till 6
Jamadi-ul-Avval 937 Hijri (26th December 1530 AD).

1487. In India, Babar came in 1526 AD and the description
available of that period till his death is as under:

1. From 1 Safar 932 Hijri (17 November 1525 AD) till 12
1628

Rajab 934 Hijri (2nd April 1528 AD)

2. From 3 Muharram 934 Hijri (18th September 1528 AD)
till 3 Moharram 936 Hijri (7th September 1529 AD). In
this way the description of only three days of first month
of 936 Hijri is available. The description of many days in
between 935 Hijri is also not available.

1488. The missing record is of the period 2nd April, 1528
A.D. to 17th September, 1528 A.D. which is crucial for this
matter. Out of this period, 2nd April, 1528 to 15th April, 1528
was part of 934 A.H. and 15th September, 1528 to 17th
September, 1528 was part of 935 A.H. It means in the crucial
year i.e. 935 A.H., the missing record is only of three days.
Therefore, non mention of anything about disputed in 935 A.H.
building in Babar-Nama does not sound to any reason.
1489. On crossing of the Babar’s army led by his commander
Sultan Chin Taimur, they found that Bayazid and Biban had
already fled away and therefore, no fight at Ayodhya could have
occurred. That being so, the question of killing of any Muslim
and making of grave at the disputed site does not arise.
1490. The Manuscripts (in short “MS”) of Baburnama, as
available has been noticed by Mrs. A.S. Beveridge based on the
magazine published by Royal Asiatic Society, Landon in 1900
AD:

1. MS written by Babur

2. MS sent to Khwaja Kalan

3. MS written by Humaun

4. MS possessed by Alphinston

5. MS kept at British Museum, Landon

6. MS in the India office of British Government

7. MS of Asiatic Society, Bengal
1629

8. MS at Mysore

9. MS of Biblothika Lindesiyana.

10. MS at Hyderabad

11. MS of St. Peteres Berg University.

12. MS kept at foreign office of St. Peters Berg

13. MS kept at Asiatic Society Museum of St. Peters
Berg

14. MS of Bukhara

15. MS of Nazerbe Turkistan
1491. It is said that probably Babur got prepared two MS but
presently none is available / traceable. Similarly MS sent to
Khwaja Kalan, which is referred in his (Babur’s) description
dated 4th March, 1529 is also not available/traceable. Even
otherwise since it is said to have been sent on 4th March, 1529, it
could not have been completed after 4th March, 1959. MS of
Mysore that is possessed by Tepu Sultan is also not available /
traceable.

1492. Elphinston purchased the MS of Babur at Peshawar in
1809 AD, which probably was prepared between 1543 to 1593
AD and the said MS is kept in the Advocate’s library, Edimbara.
1493. Dr. Leyden translated some of the part of Babur’s
autobiography from the MS of Elphinston and Erskin made
corrections in his translation on the basis of the said MS.
1494. MS of Biblothika Lindesiyana was purchased in 1865
AD and is incomplete.

1495. MS of Hyderabad was made available to Mrs.
Beveridge from the library of Sir Salar Jang. It is said to be
prepared in 1700 AD. It is most complete available MS, as
claimed by Mrs. A.S. Beveridge. She has written her translation
of ‘Baburnama’ on the basis thereof.

1630

1496. MS of St. Petersberg is said to have been prepared
from another MS copied in 1617 AD. Dr. George Jaikab Kehar
prepared the said MS in 1737 but the MS where from it was
prepared is not traceable. Elminski published Turkish Edition
of Baburnama in 1857 AD on the basis of the said MS and
French translation of Babur-nama made by Dr. Pevet Kotele
was also based on the said MS.

1497. From the reading of translation of ‘Babur-nama’ we do
not find any title thereof. However, now it is commonly known
as “Babur-nama” or “Tuzuk-i-babri” by all.
1498. In the earlier part of Babur-nama i.e. upto 1508-09
AD, it is in the form of history where the details have been
given of various events occurred in different years but from
1519 AD till end, it is a day to day description.
1499. Baburnama was originally written in Turkish. Initially,
it was translated in Persian prose by Sheikh Zain Wafai Kwafi.
One of the MS of the said translation is in Raza Library,
Rampur, U.P. (India) and another is in British Museum, Landon.
Another Persian translation was made by Mirza Payanda Hasan
Gajnavi in 1586 AD under the orders of Behroz Khan Gajnavi,
who in fact made a partial translation and it was completed by
Mohd. Kuli Mugul Hisari. The most universal popular Persian
translation was made by Mirza Abdurrahim Khane Khana Bin
Bairam Khan (Abul Fazal) in 1589 AD.

1500. The first English translation of Babur-nama was
attempted by “Dr. John Leyden” in 1810 AD. However, he
could not complete the same and died in August, 1811 AD. At
the same time “William Erskine” also commenced his English
translation from Persian under the instructions of General Sir
John Malcom and Elphinstone and completed his work in 1813
1631

AD. Thereafter he found that there was a lot of differences in
the work of Dr. John Leyden. Since Leyden had commenced
his translation from Turkish MS, Erskine made corrections in
his translation and this work was published in 1826 AD under
the title “Memoirs of Zehir-ed-Din Muhammad Babur” by
“John Laden and William Erskine”.

1501. Another translation was made in English by Mrs.
Annette Susannah Beveridge, (hereinafter referred to as
“Beveridge”) under the title “Babur-nama (Memoirs of Babur)”.
Initially her translation was published in four parts as under :-

i. History prior to Babur’s victory of Kabul (the period
relating to Phargana) – published in 1912 AD.

ii. From Kabul Victory till India victory ; published in
1914 AD
iii. From India’s victory till end ; published in 1917 AD
iv. Introduction, Glossary etc. ; published in 1921 AD
1502. The complete four parts in two volumes were
published collectively in 1922 under the title “The Babar Nama
in English”.

1503. French translation was made by Pevet-de-Kotele
published in 1871 AD.

1504. The learned counsels for the parties have not disputed
that the contents of the book of Beveridge’s translation of
Babur-Nama available to the Court has no difference with the
photocopies of some of the pages filed as Exhibits, detailed
above.

1505. The parties agree that amongst various books
translating “Babur-nama, Mrs. Beveridge’s translation is the
most authentic and complete. The ‘Affairs of Hindustan’
commences from page 439 which says:

1632

“The centre of interest in Babur’s affairs now moves from
Qandahar to a Hindustan torn by faction, of which faction
one result was an appeal made at this time to Babur by
Daulat Khan Ludi (Yusuf-khail) and ‘Alau’d-din ‘Alam
Khan Ludi for help against Ibrahim.”

1506. The details of meeting of Dilawar Khan and Babur
giving an occasion to him to come to India has been written by
Mrs. Beveridge on page 440 as under :

“b. Reception of Dilawar Khan in Kabul.

Wedding festivities were in progress when Dilawar
Khan reached Kabul. He presented himself, at the Char-
bagh may be inferred, and had word taken to Babur that an
Afghan was at his Gate with a petition. When admitted, he
demeaned himself as a suppliant and proceeded to set forth
the distress of Hindustan. Babur asked why he, whose
family had so long eaten the salt of the Ludis, had so
suddenly deserted them for himself. Dilawar answered that
his family through 40 years had uphelf the Ludi throne, but
that Ibrahim maltreated Sikandar’s amirs, had killed 25 of
them without cause, some by hanging, some burned alive,
and that there was no hope of safety in him. Therefore, he
said, he had been sent by many amirs to Babur whom they
were ready to obey and for whose coming they were on the
anxious watch.”

“c. Babur asks a sign.

At the dawn of the day following the feast, Babur
prayed in the garden for a sign of victory in Hindustan,
asking that it should be a gift to himself of mango or betel,
fruits of that land. It so happened that Daulat Khan had
sent him, as a present, half-ripened mangoes preserved in
1633

honey ; when these were set before him, he accepted them
as the sign, and from that time forth, says the chronicler,
made preparation for a move on Hindustan.”

1507. Babur’s expedition to India (Hindustan) this time was
the fourth one and commenced in 930 AH i.e. 10th November,
1523 AD. The first battle ensued between Babur and Bihar
Khan leaving a section of army of Ibrahim Ludi at Lahor since
Daulat Khan had already fled therefrom. Babur defeated Bihar
Khan and his troops followed Bihar Khan fugitive men into
Lahor, plundered the town and burned some of the bazars.
Thereafter Babur moved to Dibalpur and samething happened
thereat also i.e. it was stormed, plundered and put to the sword.
We need not go into further details about other battles except the
major battle against Ibrahim Lodi son of Sikundar Lodi (An
Afghan) at Panipat which he (Babar) won on 20th April, 1526
A.D. This battle resulted in killing of about 40-50 thousand
soldiers. Babur immediately appointed Humayun to reach Agra
and take over the palace as also to mount guard over the
Treasure. Some of the confidents of Babur were directed to keep
watch on the Treasuries at Delhi.

1508. On 21st April, 1526, Babur visited bank of Jumna, on
24th April, 1526 A.D., he visited Sheikh Nizamud-din Auliya’s
Tomb on the bank of river Jumna at Delhi and also made an
excursion into the Fort of Delhi where he spent night. On next
day i.e. 25th April, 1526 A.D., he visited Khwaja Qutbud-din’s
Tomb, and the Tombs and residences of Suleman Ghiyasu’d-din
Balban and Suleman Alauud-din Khilji and his Minar, the Hoze-
shamsi, Hoze-i-khas and the Tombs and gardens of Suleman
Buhlul Ludi and Sikandar Ludi. On page 476, Mrs. Beveridge
mention:

1634

“We bestowed the Military Collectorate (shiqdarlighi) of
Dihli on Red Wali, made Dost Diwan in the Dihli district,
sealed the treasuries, and made them over to their charge.”

1509. On 28th April, 1526 A.D. Babur moved on for Agra
and also made an excursion to Tughluqabad. He reached near
Agra on 4th May, 1526 A.D. and stayed at the mansion of
Sulaiman Farmuli in a suburb of Agra and moved on the next
day to Jalal Khan’s house. At Agra the garrison did not
surrender to Humayun, and, therefore he sat down to watch the
roads out of Agra till the arrival of Babur.
1510. The king of Gualiar (Gwaliar) had died in the battle of
Panipat but his son and other family members were at Agra at
that time. When Humayun reached Agra, they tried to flee away,
but could not due to the close guard of outside ways by
Humayun’s army. They offered a mass of jewels and valuables
including the diamond Koh-i-nur to Humayun which was
offered by Humayun to Babur on his arrival but Babur gave it to
Humayun back. It is said that the said diamond weigh about 320
ratis (8 misqals). On 10th May, 1526 AD, Babur entered the fort
of Sultan Ibrahim Ludi at Agra.

1511. The biography though said to have been written de die
in diem, but the record of some period being not available, the
biography in respect to those dates is admittedly missing.
Regarding his activities at Ayodhya, from a perusal of Page 602
of the book, it appears that he reached at some distance above
the junction of rivers Ghaghara and Saryu on 28.3.1528, i.e.,
Saturday the 7th Rajab 934 A.H. The area reigned by Shaikh
Bayazid Baqi Shaghawal, along with some others crossed the
river and conquered the place. Babur stayed on the Bank of
Saryu for sometimes. The autobiography contains the date 2nd
1635

April 1528 but thereafter there is a break of narrative between
2nd April to 18th September 1528 AD, i.e. Jumada II 12th, 934
A.H. and Moharram III 935 A.H.

1512. What happened at Ayodhya, whether Babur actually
visited Ayodhya or not, nothing is mentioned about it in the said
autobiography. The contents of his autobiography of dated
28.3.1528 and 2.4.1528 as contained on Page-602 are
reproduced as under :

“(March 28th) On Saturday the 7th of Rajab we dismounted
2 or 3 kurohs from Aud above the junction of the Gagar
(Gogra) and Sird(a). Till today Shaikh Bayazid will have
been on the other side of the Sird(a) opposite Aud, sending
letters to the Sultan and discussing with him, but the Sultan
getting to know his deceitfulness, sent word to Qaracha at
the Mid-day Prayer and made ready to cross the river. On
Qaracha’s joining him, they crossed at once to where were
some 50 horsemen with 3 or 4 elephants. These men could
make no stand; they fled, a few having been dismounted,
the heads cut off were sent in.

Following the Sultan there crossed over Bi-khub
(var. Ni-khub) Sl. and Tardi Beg (the brother) of Quj Beg,
and Baba Chuhra (the Brave), and Baqi Shahghawal,
Those who had crossed first and gone on, pursued Shaikh
Bayazid till the Evening Prayer, but he flung himself into
the jungle and escaped. Chin-timur dismounted late on the
bank of standing-water, rode on at mid-night after the
rebel, went as much as 40 kurohs (80 m.), and came to
where Shaikh Bayazid’s family and relations (nisba?) had
been; they however must have fled. He sent gallopers off in
all directions from that place; Baqi Shaghawal and a few
1636

braves drove the enemy like sheep before them, overtook
the family and brought in some Afghan prisoners.

We stayed a few days on that ground (near Aud) in
order to settle the affairs of Aud. People praised the land
laying along the Sird(a) 7 or 8 kurohs (14-16 m.) above
Aud, saying it was hunting-ground. Mir Muhammad the
raftsman was sent out and returned after looking at the
crossing over the Gagar-water (Gogra) and the Sird(a)-
water (Chauka?).

(April 2nd) On Thursday the 12th of the month I rode out
intending to hunt.” (emphasis added)
1513. Page 617 of the above book, mentions activities of
22.10.1528 as under :

“(Oct. 22nd) By this time the treasure of Iskandar and
Ibrahim in Dihli and Agra was at an end. Royal orders
were given therefore, on Thursday the 8th of Safar, that
each stipendiary (wajhdar) should drop into the Diwan, 30
in every 100 of his allowance, to be used for war-material
and appliances, for equipment, for powder, and for the pay
of gunners and matchlockmen.”

1514. For the period, i.e., 2.4.1528 to 18.9.1528, the record
of biography whereof is not available, during this period of five
and half months, the Babur is said to have proceeded to Junpur
(Jaunpur), Chausa, Baksara (Baksar) etc. and was ill for 40
days. Beveridge on Pages 603 and 604 of Babur-Nama has said:

“Mr. Erskine note (Mems. p.381n.) that he found the gap in
all MSS. he saw and that historians of Hindustan throw no
light upon the transactions of the period. Much can be
gleaned however as to Babur’s occupations during the 5½
months of the lacuna from his chronicle of 935 AH. which
1637

makes several references to occurrences of “last year” and
also allows several inferences to be drawn. From this
source it becomes know that the Afghan campaign the
record of which is broken by the gap, was carried on and
that in its course Babur was at Jun-pur (f. 365), Chausa (f.
365b) and Baksara (f. 366-366b); that he swam the Ganges
(f. 366b) bestowed Sarun on a Farmuli Shaikh-zada (f.
374b and f. 377), negociated with Rana Sanga’s son
Bikramajit (f. 342b), ordered a Char-bagh laid out (f. 340),
and was ill for 40 days (F. 346b). It may be inferred too
that he visited Dulpur (f. 353b), recalled “Askari (f. 339),
sent Khwaja Dost-i-khawand on family affairs to Kabul (f.
345b), and was much pre-occupied by the disturbed state of
Kabul (see his letters to Humayun and Khawaja Kalan
written in 935 AH.).

It is not easy to follow the dates of events in 935 AH.
because in many instances only the day of the week or a
“next day” is entered. I am far from sure that one passage
at least now found s.a. 935 AH. does not belong to 934 AH.
It is not in the Hai. Codex (where its place would have
been on f. 363b), and, so far as I can see, does not fit with
the dates of 935AH. It will be considered with least trouble
with its context and my notes (q.v. f.363b and ff. 366-
366b).”

1515. From Page 679 of ‘Babur-Nama’ by Beveridge, it
further appears that Babur received message on 27.5.1529 about
taking of ‘Luknur’ by Baqi and one Abdullah (kitabdar). The
extract of the autobiography dated 27.5.1529 is reproduced as
under :

“(May 27th) On Friday (19th) I rode out to visit Sikandarpur
1638

and Kharid. Today came matters written by ‘Abdu’l-lah
(kitabdar) and Baqi about the taking of Luknur.”

(emphasis added)
1516. On 28.5.1529, it is mentioned that the Babur sent one
Kuki along with a troop to join Baqi.

1517. At Page 680 the author (Beveridge) has mentioned
about a surprise survival of some record of 934 A.H. and has
written that this part of the writing appears to be in respect to
Aud (Ayodhya) where Babur spent some days in 934 A.H. It
reads as under :

“After spending several days pleasantly in that place where
there are gardens, running waters, well-designed
buildings, trees, particularly mango-trees, and various
birds of coloured plumage, I ordered the march to be
towards Ghazipur.” (emphasis added)
1518. Pages 684 and 685, refer the dates 13th June 1529
A.D., 17th June 1529 A.D. and 20th June 1529 A.D., and say that
Baqi joined Babur in pursuit of Biban and Bayazid near Dalmud
(Dalmau) and Baqi was given leave along with his army of Aud
(Ayodhya) on 20th June 1529 A.D.
1519. “John Layden and William Erskine’s” book on
“Babar/ Babur-Nama” also does not throw any light on this
aspect.

1520. “Lieut.-Colonel F.G. Talbot” in his book “Memoirs
of Baber Emperor of India-First of the Great Moghuls”, first
published in 1909 (first Indian reprint 1974 published by Ess
Ess Publications, Delhi) has said that with an intent to set up an
Empire in India, he set out on march in 1525 A.D. along with
about 12 thousands men. On 29th December, 1525 A.D., he
reached at Sialkot. Here he has given his experience with Jats
1639

and Gujers in the following words :

“Every time that I have entered Hindustan, the Jats
and Gujers have regularly poured down in prodigious
numbers, from their hills and wilds, in order to carry off
oxen and buffaloes. These were the wretches that really
inflicted the chief hardships, and were guilty of the severest
oppressions on the country.” (Page 174)
1521. Therefrom he proceeded to Panipat where he defeated
Ibrahim Lodi, Sultan of Delhi in April 1526 A.D. On page 187
to 188, Talbot has narrated Baber’s memoirs after defeating
Ibrahim Lodi as under :

“On Thursday, the 28th of Rejeb, about the hour of
afternoon prayers, I entered Agra, and took up my
residence at Sultan Ibrahim’s palace. From the time when I
conquered the country of Kabul, which was in the year
1504, till the present time I had always been bent on
subduing Hindustan. Sometimes, however, from the
misconduct of my Amirs and their dislike of the plan,
sometimes from the cabals and opposition of my brothers, I
was prevented from prosecuting any expedition into that
country, and its provinces escaped being overrun. At length
these obstacles were removed. There was now no one left,
great or small, noble or private man, who could dare to
utter a word in opposition to the enterprise. In the year
1519, I collected an army, and having taken the fort of
Bajour by storm, put all the garrison to the sword. I next
advanced into behreh, where I prevented all marauding
and plunder, imposed a contribution on the inhabitants,
and having levied it to the amount of four hundred
thousand shahrukhis in money and goods, divided the
1640

proceeds among the troops who were in my service, and
returned back to Kabul. From that time till the year 1526, I
attached myself in a peculiar degree to the affairs of
Hindustan, and in the space of these seven or eight years
entered it five times at the head of an army. The fifth time,
the Most High God, of his grace and mercy, cast down and
defeated an enemy so mighty as Sultan Ibrahim, and made
me the master and conqueror of the powerful empire of
Hindustan.”

1522. The Empire of Hindustan on Page 189 of Talbot’s
Memoirs of Baber (supra) is described in the following words :

“The empire of Hindustan is extensive, populous and
rich. On the east, the south, and even the west, it is
bounded by the Great Ocean. On the north, it has kabul,
Ghazni, and Kandahar. The capital of all Hindustan is
Delhi.”

1523. He also narrated that on one hand Baber criticised the
country he has recently invaded and conquered but
simultaneously he has expressed very high opinion. Page 190 of
the Book ‘Memoirs of Baber’ (supra) says:

“Hindustan is a country that has few pleasures to
recommend it. The people are not handsome. They have no
idea of the charms of friendly society, of frankly mixing
together, or of familiar intercourse. They have no genius,
no comprehension of mind, no politeness of manner, no
kindness or fellow-feeling, no ingenuity or mechanical
invention in planning or executing their handicraft works,
no skill or knowledge in design or architecture; they have
no good horses, no good flesh, no grapes or musk-melons,
no good fruits, no ice or cold water, no good food or bread
1641

in their bazars, no baths or colleges, no candles, no
torches, not even a candlestick.

The chief excellency of Hindustan is, that it is a large
country, and has abundance of gold and silver. Another
convenience of Hindustan is, that the workmen of every
profession and trade are innumerable, and without end.
For any work, or any employment, there is always a set
ready, to whom the same employment and trade have
descended from father to son for ages.”

1524. Though it is not necessary for the present purpose to
discuss Babur-nama at great length since we are not concerned
with the history of Babur or his invasion to India, laying of
empire here-at, and its other political, social and other
consequences but in the light of the respective arguments
advanced by the parties it may be of some importance to have a
bird eye view of some incidental relevant aspects borne out
from the description given in Babur-nama. Sri Mishra said that
Babar was a thorough religious person. In fact the submission of
Sri Misra that Babar was a deeply indulged religious man, had
no hatred towards idols, never visited Ayodhya and, therefore,
had no occasion to order for construction of any
building/disputed building, i.e., mosque at Ayodhya, are duly
concurred and in fact in the line of what has been argued by Sri
Jilani and other counsels appearing for various Muslim parties.

This however is in direct contradiction to the arguments of Sri
H.S.Jain, M.M. Pandey, A.K.Pandey etc.
1525. In Beveridge’s Babur-Nama on page 15, the quality
and habits of Babar are described:

“He was a true believer (Hanafi mazhablik) and pure in
the Faith, not neglecting the Five Prayers and, his life
1642

through, making up his Omissions. He read the Quran very
frequently and was a disciple of his Highness Khawaja
‘Ubaidu’l-lah (Ahrari) who honoured him by visits and
even called him son. His current readings were the two
Quintets and the Masnawi of histories he read chiefly the
Shah-nama. He had a poetic nature, but no taste for
composing verses. He was so just that when he heard of a
caravan returning from Khitai as overwhelmed by snow in
the mountains of Eastern Andijan, and that of its thousand
heads of houses (awiluq) two only had escaped, he sent his
overseers to take charge of all goods and, though no heirs
were near and though he was in want himself, summoned
the heirs from Khurasan and Samarkand, and in the course
of a year or two had made over to them all their property
safe and sound.

He was very generous; in truth, his character rose
altogether to the height of generosity. He was affable,
eloquent and sweet-spoken, daring and bold. Twice out-
distancing all his braves, he got to work with his own
sword, once at the Gate of Akhsi, once at the Gate of
Shahrukhiya. A middling archer, he was strong in the fist,-
not a man but fell to his blow. Through his ambition, peace
was exchanged often for war, friendliness for hostility.

In his early days he was a great drinker, later on
used to have a party once or twice a week. He was good
company, on occasions reciting verses admirably. Towards
the last he rather preferred intoxicating confects and,
under their sway, used to lose his head. His disposition was
amorous, and he bore many a lover’s mark. He played
draughts a good deal, sometimes even threw the dice.”

1643

1526. The treasure, Baber received at Agra was distributed to
his son Humayun and other relatives, army men and also sent to
his relatives in Samarkand and Khurasan:

“(May 12th) On Saturday the 29th of Rajab the examinations
and distribution of the treasure were begun. To Humayun
were given 70 laks from the Treasury, and, over and above
this, a treasure house was bestowed on him just as it was,
without ascertaining and writing down its contents. To
some begs 10 laks were given, 8, 7, or 6 to others. Suitable
money-gifts were bestowed from the Treasury on the whole
army, to every tribe there was, Afghan, Hazara, ‘Arab,
Biluch etc. to each according to its position. Every trader
and student, indeed every man who had come with the
army, took ample portion and share of bounteous gift and
largess. To those not with the army went a mass of treasure
in gift and largess, as for instance, 17 laks to Kamran, 15
laks to Muhammad-i-zaman Mirza, while to ‘Askari, Hindal
and indeed to the whole various train of relations and
younger children went masses of red and white (gold and
silver), of plenishing, jewels and slaves. Many gifts went to
the begs and soldiery on that side (Tramontana). Valuable
gifts (saughat) were sent for the various relations in
Samarkand, Khurasan, Kashghar and ‘Iraq. To holy men
belonging to Samarkand and Khurasan went offerings
vowed to God (nuzur); so too to Makka and Madina. We
gave one Shahrukhi for every soul in the country of Kabul
and the valley-side of Varsak, man and woman, bond and
free, of age or non-age.”

1527. The revenue of the country held by Babar in 1528
A.D. from Bhira to Bihar was 52 krurs (judged by Erskine in
1644

1854 A.D. at about Pound 4,212,000).

1528. At the time Babar invaded India, it was governed by
five Musalman Rulers and two Pagans which he described as
respected and independent Rulers. Besides them, there were
many Rais and Rajas in the hills and jungles, held in little
esteem. The seven Principle Rulers are described on page 481 to
484 of Babur-Nama by Beveridge:

“At the date of my conquest of Hindustan it was
governed by five Musalman rulers (padshah) and two
Pagans (kafir). These were the respected and independent
rulers, but there were also, in the hills and jungles, many
rais and rajas, held in little esteem (kichik karim).

First, there were the Afghans who had possession of
Dihli, the capital, and held the country from Bhira to
Bihar. Junpur, before their time, had been in possession of
Sl. Husain Sharqi (Eastern) whose dynasty Hindustanis
call Purabi (Eastern). His ancestors will have been cup-
bearers in the presence of Sl. Firuz Shah and those
(Tughluq) sultans :they became supreme in Junpur after his
death. At that time Dihli was in the hands of Sl. ‘Alau’u’-din
(Alam Khan) of the Sayyid Dynasty to whose ancestor
Timur Beg had given it when, after having captured it, he
went away. Sl. Buhlul Lodi and his son (Sikandar) got
possession of the capital Junpur and the capital Dihli, and
brought both under one government (88I AH.–1476 AD).

Secondly, there was Sl. Muhammad Muzaffer in
Gujrat; he departed from the world a few days before the
defeat of Sl. Ibrahim. He was skilled in the Law, a ruler
(padshah) seeking after knowledge, and a constant copyist
of the Holy Book. His dynasty people call Tank. His
1645

ancestors also will have been wine-servers to Sl. Firuz
Shah and those (Tughluq) sultans; they became possessed
of Gujrat after his death.

Thirdly, there were the Bahmanis of the Dakkan
(Deccan, i.e., South), but at the present time no
independent authority is left them; their great begs have
laid hands on the whole country, and must be asked for
whatever is needed.

Fourthly, there was Sl. Mahmud in the country of
Malwa, which people call also Mandau. His dynasty they
call Khilij (Truk). Rana Sanga had defeated Sl. Mahmud
and taken possession of most of his country. This dynasty
also has become feeble. Sl. Mahmud’s ancestors also must
have been cherished by Sl Firuz Shah; they became
possessed of the Malwa country after his death.

Fifthly, there was Nasrat Shah in the country of
Bengal. His father (Husain Shah), a Sayyid styled
‘Alau’u’d-din, had ruled in Bengal and Nasrat Shah
attained to rule by inheritance. A surprising custom in
Bengal is that hereditary succession is rare. The royal
office is permanent and there are permanent offices of
amirs, wazirs and mansab-dars (officials). It is the office
that Bengalis regard with respect. Attached to each office
is a body of obedient, subordinate retainers and servants. If
the royal heart demand that a person should be dismissed
and another be appointed to sit in his place, the whole body
of subordinates attached to that office become the (new)
officeholder’s. There is indeed this peculiarity of the royal
office itself that any person who kills the ruler (padshah)
and seats himself on the throne, becomes ruler himself;

1646

amirs, wazirs, soldiers and peasants submit to him at once,
obey him, and recognize him for the rightful ruler his
predecessor in office had been. Bengalis say, “We are
faithful to the throne; we loyally obey whoever occupies
it”. As for instance, before the reign of Nasrat Shah’s
father ‘Alau’u’d-din, an Abyssinian (Habshi, named
Muzaffar Shah) had killed his sovereign (Mahmud Shah
Ilyas), mounted the throne and ruled for some time.
‘Alau’u’d-din killed that Abyssinian, seated himself on the
throne and became ruler. When he died, his son (Nasrat)
became ruler by inheritance. Another Bengali custom is to
regard it as a disgraceful fault in a new ruler if he expend
and consume the treasure of his predecessors. On coming
to rule he must gather treasure of his own. To amass
treasure Bengalis regard as glorious distinction. Another
custom in Bengal is that from ancient times parganas have
been assigned to meet the charges of the treasury, stables,
and all royals expenditure and to defray these charges no
impost is laid on other lands.

These five, mentioned above, were the great
Musalman rulers, honoured in Hindustan, many-legioned,
and broad-landed. Of the Pagans the greater both in
territory and army, is the Raja of Bijanagar.

The second is Rana Sanga who in these latter days
had grown great by his own valour ans sword. His original
country was Chitur; in the downfall from power of the
Mandaus Sultans, he became possessed of many of their
dependencies such as Rantanbur, Sarangpur, Bhilsan and
Chandiri. Chandiri I stormed in 934 AH. (1528 A.D.)
and, by God’s pleasure, took it in a few hours; in it was
1647

Rana Sanga’s great and trusted man Midni Rao; we
made general massacre of the Pagans in it and, as will
be narrated, converted what for many years had been a
mansion of hostility, into a mansion of Islam.

There are very many rais and rajas on all sides and
quarters of Hindustan, some obedient to Islam, some,
because of their remoteness or because their places are
fastnesses, not subject to Musalman rule.”
1529. From the above it does appear that Babar’s visit to
India for its conquest was a well intended plan and fulfillment of
a dream which he had. At page 478 Mrs. Beveridge has written:

“From the date 910 at which the country of Kabul
was conquered, down to now (932 AH.) (my) desire for
Hindustan had been constant, but owing sometimes to the
feeble counsels of begs, sometimes to the non
accompaniment of elder and younger brethren, a move on
Hindustan had not been practicable and its territories had
remained unsubdued. At length no such obstacles were left;
no beg, great or small (beg begat) of lower birth, could
speak an opposing word. In 925 AH. (1519 AD.) we led an
army out and, after taking Bajaur by storm in 2-3 gari (44-

66 minutes), and making a general massacre of its
people, went on into Bhira. Bhira we neither over-ran nor
plundered; we imposed a ransom on its people, taking
from them in money and goods to the value of 4 laks of
shahrukhis and having shared this out to the army and
auxiliaries, returned to Kabul. From then till now we
laboriously held tight to Hindustan, five times leading
an army into it. The fifth-time, God the Most High, by his
own mercy and favour, made such a foe as Sl. Ibrahim the
1648

vanquished and loser, such a realm as Hindustan our
conquest and possession.” (emphasis added)
1530. It also appears therefrom that Babur treated himself to
be the third invader who have conquered and ruled Hindustan.
First according to him was Mahmud of Ghazni (also called
Mahmud Ghaznavi), a “Turk” by race, who invaded India on
several occasions and though died in 1030 AD but his
descendants set long on the seat of Government in Hindustan.
The second was Shihabuddin of Ghur (also known as
“Muhammad Ghori”) who died in 1206 AD and then the third
was Babur.

1531. It thus appear that Babur did not came to Hindustan
with an intention to spread Islam religion but he had intention to
conquer and rule the country. It is true that Hindustan in the
present form under a single hand could not have been there in
1526 AD and on the contrary it was independently ruled by
several Rulers treating each part as a country but as a whole also
it used to be called by Babar as “Hindustan”. This is also
evident from page 479 of the aforesaid book where it is
mentioned:

“All Hindustan was not under one supreme head
(padshah), but each Raja ruled independently in his own
country.”

1532. It thus cannot be doubted that most of the persons,
who ruled Indian sub-continent at that time were followers of
Islam with whom Baber fought to set up his empire.
1533. About the construction of buildings in general and the
workmen for construction work, on page 520 of “Babur-
Nama” by Beveridge, she said:

“Another good thing in Hindustan is that it has
1649

unnumbered and endless workmen of every kind. There is a
fixed caste (jam’i) for every sort of work and for every
thing, which has done that work or that thing from father to
son till now. Mulla Sharaf, writing in the Zafar-nama about
the building of Timur Beg’s Stone Mosque, lays stress on
the fact that on it 200 stone-cutters worked, from
Azarbaijan, Fars, Hindustan and other countries. But 680
men worked daily on my buildings in Agra and of Agra
stone-cutters only; while 1491 stone-cutters worked daily
on my buildings in Agra, Sikri, Biana, Dulpur, Gualiar
and Kuil. In the same way there are numberless artisans
and workmen of every sort in Hindustan.”

1534. There is mention of buildings in Babur-Nama at
different places including temple of Gwalior, mosque at Delhi,
Agra, Gwalior and other several places but it is true that neither
there is mention of demolition of any religious place by Babar in
Awadh area nor there is anything to show that he either entered
Ayodhya or had occasion to issue any direction for construction
of a building and in particular a Mosque at Ayodhya.
1535. The Babar’s camping at Ghaghar has also been
described by William Erskine in his book “History of India
under Baber” (May 1845), though published for the first time
in 1854 after his death (Book No. 65) (Published in 1994 by M/s
Atlantic Publishers and Distributors). Erskine came to India in
1803 AD as Secretary of Sri James Mackintosh at Bombay and
later came to be appointed as Master in equity in the Recorder
of Bombay Court but had to leave India in 1823 on suspicion of
embezzlement. He was born in 1773 and died in 1852. After
return from India he spent rest of his life in Scotland occupying
the post of Provost of Saint Andrews in 1837-38 AD. It says:

1650

“Baber, having brought the war of Chanderi to a
conclusion, lost no time in marching to meet the danger
that threatened him in the East. Having repassed the
Jamna, he proceeded without intermission towards Kanauj.
On the road, he learned that his suspicions of Sheikh
Bayezid’s fidelity had not been unfounded. That chief had
joined Baban and Maaruf, the leaders of the revolt, with
his whole army; so that Baber’s troops had been compelled
to retreat across the Ganges, to evacuate even Kanauj and
to fall back on Raberi, movements that had enabled the
enemy to take Shemsabad, a rich town in the Doab, by
storm.”

1536. In “History of India under Baber” by William
Erskine (Supra) on page 87, there is a footnote showing that
Mir or Mirza was a title:

“The princes of Taimur’s family, even those who held
the supreme power, had not yet assumed the title of shah or
padshah, king of emperor; they were called Mir or Mirza,
and often Sultan. In the text, however, the ruling prince is
often called King, for distinction’s sake; following the
usage of historians in general, and even of Baber himself.
The title of Sultan was not confined to the sovereign, many
chiefs, and children of chiefs, especially among the Moghul
tribes, being called by that name, which is an Arabic term,
nearly equivalent to Lord. The titles, Mir, Mirza, and Shah,
came also, in process of time, to be very commonly given to
religious guides and holy men, or mendicants, and, from a
sort of flattery, were often continued to the descendants as
part of the family name. The title of Mirza, in later times,
has been lavished by common usage on secretaries and
1651

clerks; and in general on all who pretend to learning.
Mirza is merely mirzadeh, son of a Mir.”

1537. The reference of Oudh in the said book of Earskine is
on page 406, 443 and 450. Referring Lodhi dynasties
expansions on page 406-407 Easrskine has written:

“Behlul’s son, Sultan Sekander Lodi, a prince of
talent, in a reign of thirty years, enlarged the kingdom still
farther. In the Est, he subdued Behar, the last province that
remained in the possession of the Sherki kings; and even
advanced into Bengal, where Sultan Husein Shah had
taken refuge. By a convention concluded with Sultan Ala-
ed-din of Bengal, it was agreed, that Sekander should
retain Behar, Tirhut, Sirkar Saran, and all that he had
conquered; that he should not again invade Bengal; and
that neither prince should support the enemies of the other.
On the west, he gained possession of Dhulpur and
Chanderi, and received the submission of the Raja of
Gualiar and and other princes; so that, at his death, his
kingdom had attained a very great extent, containing the
Penjab, the Doab, the provinces of Oud, Laknau, Juanpur
and Behar, besides a wide tract of country to the west of
the Jamna, from the Satlej to Bandelkand. These extensive
possessions, however, though under one king, had no very
strong principle of cohesion. The monarchy was a
congeries of nearly independent principalities, jagirs and
provinces, each ruled by a hereditary chief, or by a
zemindar or delegate from Delhi; and the inhabitants
looked more to their immediate governors, who had
absolute power in the province, and in whose hands,
consequently, lay their happiness or misery, than to a
1652

distant and little known sovereign. It was the individual,
not the law, that reigned. The Lodi princes, not merely to
strengthen their own power, but from necessity, had in
general committed the government of the province, and the
chief offices of trust, to their own countrymen, the Afghans;
so that men of the Lodi, Fermuli, and Lohana tribes, held
all the principal jagirs; which, from the habitual modes of
thinking of their race, they considered as their own of right,
and purchased by their swords, rather than as due to any
bounty or liberality on the part of the sovereign.”

1538. Again on page 441-443 while referring political
condition of the area under rule of Ebrahim Lodhi who was
defeated by Babar in April 1526 AD, Earskine has said
(including the description of political sovereignty on Ayodhya):

“But, though Baber had been victorious in the field,
and was in possession of the two great capitals of the
kingdom, it soon appeared that his situation, far from being
one of safety or ease, was surrounded with difficulty and
danger. He and his army were strangers to the people
whom he had subdued; and a mutual dislike soon
manifested itself between his soldiers and the inhabitants of
Agra, his head-quarters. The peasantry, as well as the
fighting men of the country, shunned and fled from his
followers. The north of India, at the time of Baber’s
conquest, still retained much of its original Hindu
organization; its system of village and district
administration and government; its division into numerous
little chieftainships, or petty local governments; and, in
political revolutions, the people looked much more to their
own immediate rulers, than to the prince who governed in
1653

the capital. Except at Delhi and Agra, the inhabitants
everywhere fortified their towns, and prepared to resist.

The invasion was regarded as a temporary inundation, that
would speedily pass off. Every man in authority raised
troops, and put himself in a condition to act. Those who
held delegated authority or jagirs, being generally
Afghans, were consequently hostile to the new state of
things. They soon came to an understanding among
themselves, and took measures for mutual co-operation.
Raja Hasan Khan of Mewat, in the neighborhood of Agra,
was the grand instigator of the opposition; which was
supported by Nizam Khan, in Biana; Muhammed Zeitun, in
Dhulpur; Tatar Khan Sarang-Khani, in Gualiar; Husein
Khan Lohani, in Raberi; Kutb Khan, in Etawa; Alim Khna
Jilal Khan Jighat, in Kalpi; Kasim Sambhali, in Sambhal;
and Marghub, a slave, in Mahawan, within twenty kos of
Agra. Indeed, all of these chiefs were immediately around
Agra, or close upon its borders. They looked for aid from
Rana Sanga, the powerful chief of Cheitur; who, on his
part, laid claim to a great part of the right bank of the
Jamna. These Western Afghans wished to place Sultan
Mahmud Lodi, a Brother of the late Sultan Ibrahim, on the
throne of Delhi; and so to preserve the Afghan and the
Lodi dynasty.

In the Eastern provinces of Juanpur and Oud, the
opposition presented even a more regular form. There, the
confederacy of Afghan chiefs, who had been in open
rebellion against Ibrahim for two years before his death,
still continued. The revolt was originally headed by Nasir
Khan Lohani, Maaruf Fermuli, and others. The insurgents,
1654

we have seen, had elected Baber Khan Lohani, the son of
Deria Khan of Behar, for their king; and proclaimed him,
under the name of Sultan Muhamed Shah. They now
possessed, not only Behar, but nearly the whole territories
of the old Sherki monarchy, especially the country on the
left bank of the Ganges; and had even crossed to the right
bank of the river, and taken possession of Kanauj, and
advanced into the Doab. Sultan Ibrahim had sent an army,
under Mustafa Fermuli and Firuz Khan Sarang-khani, to
reduce the rebels to obedience. Mustafa had met the
revolted chiefs, and defeated them in some well-contested
actions. On his death, which occurred some time before the
defeat of Sultan Ibrahim, he was succeeded in the
command by Sheikh Bayezid, his younger brother. The
army under his orders was formidable; and it was
naturally to be expected, that, changed as circumstances
now were, the two armies opposed to each other in the
field, being both Afghans, would lay aside their mutual
animosities, and, animated by national feelings, unite to
expel Baber, the common enemy.”

1539. The Afghan Chiefs who rule in various territories of
India without any subordination, when realized that the Babar
may settle in India ending their unlimited authority, their further
action is described at page 443/444:

“It was clear that the Afghan chiefs, who till now had
ruled with nearly unlimited authority both in Delhi and
Behar, must be ruined if Baber settled in Hindustan, They,
therefore, stirred up, with great success, the apprehensions
of the natives, whether Musulman or Hindu, by the most
false and groundless reports. The people of the country
1655

were told, that they had every thing to dread from their
barbarous invaders; that they would be robbed of their
property; that their wives and children would be
dishonoured; their temples profaned or destroyed. Baber
and his army had reached Agra in May, in that climate the
hottest season of the year. The inhabitants, in terror, fled
before them, and abandoned their dwellings, so that no
grain or provender could be procured for man or beast.
The villagers fled to the waste, and infested the highways,
plundering and robbing on every side. The roads became
impassable. Baber’s force was so small that he was unable
to send out detachments sufficient to protect the different
districts. To add to these difficulties, the heats that year
happened to be uncommonly intense, so that many of his
men, who were from more temperate climates,
unaccustomed to the burning sun of India, dropped down
and died on the spot.”

1540. However, the manner in which the Babar manage the
things has been said on page 446 showing that Awadh was
assigned to Bayazid Fermuli. To take possession of the assigned
territory, Humayun moved alongwith army and on page 450 it
has mentioned:

“Humayun, after putting to fight the Afghan army,
crossed the Ganges and took possession of Juanpur. He
next marched to Ghazipur, intending to attack Nasir
Khan’s army, which had retired into that neighborhood.
But the Afghans, on his approach, retired behind the
Gogra, as it would appear, into the territory of Bengal; and
a detachment that he sent to pursue them returned, after
plundering the country of Kherid and Behar. Having thus
1656

expelled them from the Juanpur territory, he left Shah Mir
Husein, in the city of Juanpur, supported by Sultan Juneid
Birlas with some of his best troops; and Sheikh Bayezid in
Oud, with every means of maintaining the country; and
then, in compliance with orders which he received from his
father, recrossed into the Doab; and marching back by
Kalpi, of which he gained possession by the submission of
Alim Khan, rejoined the Emperor at Agra, bringing Alim
Khan along with him.”

1541. The movement of Babar in the last week of March
1528 AD near Awadh is described on page 487:

“The Emperor sending Sultan Chin Taimur, with a strong
force to pursue them, himself advanced and occupied
Laknau on the 21st, and passed the Gumti. Moving again in
pursuit of the retreating enemy, he encamped, on the 28th,
four or five miles above Oud, at the junction of the Gogra
and Sirwu. Till then, Sheikh Bayazid had maintained his
ground beyond the Sirwu, and had prevented Sultan Chin
Taimur, Baber’s general, from crossing. Being now
reinforced, however, Chin Taimur effected a passage, and
found the Afghans in full retreat. He followed them with
great alacrity, slew numbers of them, and dispersed their
army. Sheikh Bayezid threw himself into a jungle and
escaped. Chin Taimur, after a pursuit of sixty miles,
reached a spot which the families of the fugitives had left
but a short time before. The light force was now divided
into several parties, who followed the flying enemy in
different directions. Their baggage and families were
overtaken and seized; and several Afghans brought in as
prisoners. The success was complete.”

1657

1542. Here also there is no mention of anyone as Mir Baqi or
about entry of Babar in Awadh. It was submitted that there was
no occasion for Babar either to demolish a temple or to
construct a mosque at Ayodhya in 1528 AD.

1543. On page 443, he has described the state of affairs at
Ayodhya in 1526 that the Afghan Chief at Oud revolted against
Ibrahim Lodi about two years back his death and the revolt was
originally headed by Nasir Khan Lohani, Maaruf Fermuli and
others. After the death of Mustafa Fermuli, Sheikh Bayezid
succeeded him in his command who was his younger brother.
1544. On page 450, he mentions that Humayun after taking
possession of Jaunpur left Shah Mir Husein thereat supported by
Sultan Juneid Birlas along with some of his best troops and
Sheikh Bayezid in Oud along with every means of maintaining
the country and thereafter crossed Doab and marched towards
Kalpi of which he gained possession after surrender of Alim
Khan and immediately thereafter he rejoined the Emperor at
Agra. In 1527, Babar proceeded on his march to fight against
Rajputs where he defeated Rana Sanga. This victory has been
described on page 473, Erskine’s History of India (supra) as
under :

“No victory could be more complete. The enemy were quite
broken and dispersed. The whole fields around were
strewed with the dead, as well as the roads to Biana and
Alwar. Among the slain were Hasan Khan Mewati, who fell
by a matchlock shot; Raul Udi Singh, of Dongerpur; Rai
Chanderbhan Chohan; Manikchand Chohan, and many
other chiefs of note. Baber directed a tower of heads to be
erected; on a rising ground near the camp; and henceforth
assumed the proud title of Ghazi, Victorious in a Holy War.

1658

Rana Sanga himself escaped; it is said by the devotion of
some of his followers, who threw themselves in the way of
the pursuers, and sacrificed their lives for his safety; and
the regret expressed by Baber for not having urged the
pursuit in person has reference probably to the escape of
his illustrious rival. It is remarkable that, since this defeat
of Rana Sanga, no Rana of Cheitur has ever taken the field
in person against any of the princes of the House of
Taimur. When these princes were along with their armies,
the Rana’s troops have been entrusted to some eminent
Rajput chief, the Rana himself withdrawing to some one of
the hill-forts of his country.”

1545. Baber returned to Agra on 25th April, 1527 and,
thereafter, gained Chandwar, Raberi and Etawa which were
surrendered by Kutb Khan who held it. The victory of Babar
within a year after defeat of Ibrahim Lodi against Rajputs and
others has been described on page 477 of Erskine’s History of
India (supra) as under :

“That battle has broken the power of the Afghans in India,
as that of Kanwa had since broken that of the Hindu
confederacy. He had evinced, to every class of men in the
country, the decided superiority of his arms; and, with his
mental resources, the awe inspired by his hardly northern
troops, and his own bravery and conduct, the conquest of
every part of India seems to lie open to his arms.”

1546. Baber took some rest as mentioned on page 478 of
Erskine’s History of India:

“During the rains he visited Sikri, Dhulpur, and
Bari, proceeding as far as the Chambal; he thence returned
to Agra; and went to Kol or Koel in the Doad, and on to
1659

Sambhal, beyond the Ganges, returning by a different
route.”

1547. He, thereafter, planned to march against Afghans of
the East, who still held out, in considerable force, beyond the
Ganges and in Behar and some of the Hindu chiefs in the West
whose confederacy he had felt to be so formidable, i.e. Medini
Rai of Chanderi. After defeating Medini Rai at Chanderi, he
proceeded to East, i.e., Kanauj. On page 484, Erskine’s History
of India, it is said that the Baber got information that his
suspicion of Sheikh Bayezid’s fidelity are not unfounded.
Bayezid had joined Baban and Maaruf, the leaders of the revolt
with his whole army. As we have already noticed Sheikh
Bayezid was posted at Oudh by Humayun to look after that area
but on joining revolt, Baber had to move to Oudh. He reached
near Ayodhya (Oudh) on 28th March 1528 A.D. and has narrated
the events which took place thereafter as under :

“The light force was now divided into several parties, who
followed the flying enemy in different directions. Their
baggage and families were overtaken and seized; and
several Afghans brought in as prisoners. The success was
complete.”

1548. Here also we do not find anything so suggest that
Baber either entered Ayodhya or gave direction to anyone to
construct a Mosque or to demolish a temple so as to construct a
mosque.

1549. Lastly, we have Hindi Translation, i.e. “Mughal
Kaleen Bharat Baber (1526-1530)” by Sayed Athar Abbas
Rizvi (Supra). In the chapter titled as “Review” Rizvi has
observed that due to lack of confidence on Afghans, Baber
already separated them from his army except a few one of
1660

confidence. Commenting on construction activities and
available revenue on page 44, Chapter “Review”, Rizvi has said:

^^ikuhir ds ;q) ds iwoZ tks dqN Hkh /ku lEifRr izkIr gksrh Fkh
mldk vf/kdka’k Hkkx og yksxksa esa ckaV fn;k djrk FkkA 5 ekpZ dks gqek;wW
ds gehn ij fot; izkIr djds ykSVus ds mijkUr mlus mls fglkj
Q+hjkst+k rFkk mlds v/khuLFk LFkku ,oa ,d djksM+ ud+n /ku iqjLdkj
LOk#Ik iznku dj fn;kA vkxjk ds [kt+kus dks Hkh mlus blh izdkj cM+h
mnkjrk ls yksxksa dks ckaV fn;k vkSj vius vkidks d+yUnj dgykus esa xoZ
dk vuqHko fd;k djrk FkkA fgUnqLrku esa Hkh mlus izpfyr ‘kklu Ik)fr
dk vuqlj.k fd;k vkSj fofHkUu izns’kksa dks iw.kZ #Ik ls vf/kdkj esa djus
rFkk ogka ‘kkfUr LFkkfir j[kus ds fy, vD+rknkj ,oa f’kd+nkj fu;qDr
fd;sA dqN izns’k [kkylk esa lfEefyr dj fy;s x;sA fdUrq fQj Hkh
mlds fuekZ . k dk;k s aZ rFkk nku iq . ; ds dkj.k mls /ku ds
vHkko dk loZ n k gh lkeuk djuk iM+k A 22 vDVwcj 1528 bZ0
dss o`rkUr esa og fy[krk gS fd ^^bl chp esa fldUnj rFkk bczkfge ds
nsgyh ,oa vkxjk ds [kt+kukaas dk vUr gks x;kA vr% c`gLifrokj 8 lQ+j
dks ;g ‘kkgh vkns’k gqvk fd izR;sd otgnkj ;q) dh lkexzh]
vL+=&’kL= ,oa cUnwd+ rFkk rksi pykus okyksa ds osru gsrq viuh otg esa
ls 100 esa ls 30 nhoku esa nkf[ky dj nsaA**
1550. On page 46 Rizvi says :

^^ckcjukek esa rRdkyhu fofHkUu izkUrksa dh tek ¼jktLoa½ dh Hkh
ppkZ dh xbZ gSA bl dkj.k fd vkbus vdcjh ds vfrfjDr vdcj ds
iwoZ ds bfrgklksa esa jktLo ds lEcU/k esa bruk Hkh Kku fdlh xzUFk ls
ugha izkIr gksrk ckcjukek dk ;g o`rkUr vR;Ur egRoiw.kZ gSA ckcjukek
ls ;g Hkh irk pyrk gS fd ml le; rd fgUnq L rku ds leLr
vkfey] dkjhxj ,oa Jfed fgUnw gk sr s Fk sA ekyxqtkjh dh
olwyh esa rqdksZa ds jkT; esa Hkh cM+h dfBukbZ gksrh FkhA vykmn~nhu ds
rRlEcU/kh dBksj fu;e cM+s izfl) gSaA ckcjukek ds o`rkUrkuqlkj
fgUnqLrku ds eSnku ds cgqr ls Hkkxksa esa cM+s cM+s dkaVsnkj taxy gksrs Fks
tgka ijxuksa ds fuoklh ‘kj.k ys ysrs Fks vkSj fonzksg dj nsrs Fks rFkk dj
ugha vnk djrs FksA nsgyh ds lqYrkuksa ds bfrgklksa esa eokl ‘kCn dk
blh izlax esa cM+k vf/kd iz;ksx gqvk gS ftldk vFkZ ;gh dkaVsnkj taxy
1661

gSA blds vfrfjDr gypy ,oa v’kkafr ds le; Hkh blh izdkj ds
lqjf{kr LFkkukas dk iz;ksx gksrk FkkA dksVyk dh cM+h >hy dh ppkZ djrs
gq, og fy[krk gS fd]^^blds ,d vksj ls nwljs vksj ¼dh dksbZ oLrq½ ugha
fn[kkbZ iM+rhA blds e/; esa ,d Vhyk gSA blds pkjksa vksj cgqr ls
NksVh&NksVh ukSdk;sa FkhaA >hy ds lehi ds xzkeksa ds fuoklh gypy rFkk
v’kkafr ds le; ukSdkvksa ij cSBdj mlh Vhys ij pys tkrs gSaA gekjs
vkxeu ij Hkh ukSdkvksa esa cSBdj dqN yksx >hy ds e/; esa pys x;sA**
ckcjukek ls ;g Hkh irk pyrk gS fd lqYrku fldUnj us vius
jkT;dky esa /kkSyiqj esa ,d cka/k dk fuekZ.k djk;k Fkk tgka ÅWapkbZ ij
o”kkZ dk ty ,d= gksrk Fkk] ftlls ,d cgqr cM+h >hy cu tkrh FkhA
bl >hy ds iwoZ esa ,d m|ku Hkh FkkA^^
1551. Again on page 48, the Rizvi has mentioned about
Baber’s observation regarding workmen in India and says:

^^og fy[krk gS fd ^^fgUnqLrku dk ,d cgqr cM+k xq.k ;g gS fd ;gka gj
izdkj ,oa gj dyk ds tkuus okys vla[; dkjhxj ik;s tkrs gSaA izR;sd
dk;Z rFkk dyk ds fy, tkfr;ka fuf’pr gSa tks vius firk vkSj firk ds
firk ds le; ls ogh dk;Z djrh pyh vk jgh gSaA eqYyk ‘kjQ+ us rhewj
csx dh iRFkj dh efLtn ds fuekZ.k ds fo”k; esa bl ckr ij cM+k vf/kd
tksj fn;k gS fd blesa vt+jckbZtku] Q+kjl] fgUnqLrku rFkk vU; ns’kksa ds
200 iRFkj dkVus okys jksst+kuk dke djrs Fks fdUrq dsoy vkxjk esas gh
blh vkxjk ds iRFkj dkVus okyksa esa ls 680 O;fDr esjs vkxjk ds Hkouksa
ds fuekZ.k esa dk;Z djrs FksA esjs vkxjk] lhdjh] O;kuk] nkSyiqj] Xokfy;j
rFkk dksy ds Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k esa 1491 iRFkj dkVus okys jkst+kuk dk;Z
djrs FksA blh izdkj fgUnqLrku esa izR;sd izdkj ds vxf.kr f’kYidkj
rFkk dkjhxj gSaA**
1552. The constrtuction activies in India have been detailed
on page 49-50 by Rizvi in Mughalkalin Bharat as under :

^^fgUnq L rku es a fuekZ . k&dk;Z
mls gkSt+] pcwrjs] ugj] cka/k ,oa Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k ls cM+h #fp FkhA
dkcqy rFkk x+t+uh esa vkSj fgUnqLrku vkrs gq, mlus fofHkUu LFkkuksa ij
cgqr lh bekjrsa] pcwrjs bR;kfn cuok;sA fgUnqLrku igaqpdj mlus vkxjk]
lhdjh] /kkSyiqj] dksy] Xokfy;j rFkk vU; LFkkuksa ij vusd fuekZ.k&dk;Z
1662

djok;sA
mldh jkt/kkuh vkxjk dk orZeku #Ik lqYrku fldUnj yksnh ds
le; ls gh izkjEHk gqvk FkkA blls iwoZ jkt/kkuh nsgyh esa jgrh FkhA
lqYrku Q+hjkst ‘kkg rqx+yqd+ ds jkT;dky ds vfUre o”kksZa ls gh mRrjh
Hkkjr ds fofHkUu izns’k Lora= gksus yxs FksA vfUre lSf;n lqYrku dh
ckn’kkgh rks nsgyh ls ikye rd gh lhfer jg xbZ FkhA lqYrku cgyksy
dk vf/kd le; fonzksfg;ksa ds neu esa O;rhr gqvkA lqYrku fldUnj
yksnh ds le; esa ;|fi cgqr ls Hkkx fonzksfg;ksa ls eqDr gks x;s Fks fdUrq
mlds jkT; esa ‘kkfUr LFkkfir u gks ldh FkhA vius iwohZ jkT;ksa dks o’k
esa j[kus ds fy, rFkk bVkok] Xokfy;j] O;kuk] dkyih ,oa esokr ds
vf/kd fudV jgus vkSj ekyok rFkk jktiwrksa ds LOkra= jkT;ksa ij n`f”V
j[kus ds mn~ns’; ls lqYrku fldUnj yksnh dks vkxjk dks clkus dh
vko’;drk iM+h fdUrq yksfn;ksa ds jkT;dky esa vkxjk dks vf/kd mUufr
u izkIr gks ldhA ogka ds Hkou Hkh lEHkor% nsgyh ds Hkouksa dh vis{kk
lqUnj u Fks vr% ckcj dh muds izfr ?k`.kk LokHkkfod gh FkhA yksnh
lqYrkuksa us mi;ksfxrk dh n`f”V ls tks Hkh fuekZ.k&dk;Z fd;s gksaxs os ckcj
dks viuh vksj vkd`”V u dj lds vr% mlus vkxjk esa fo’ks”k #Ik ls
m|ku] Hkouk s a] gEeke] dq v k s a bR;kfn dk fuekZ . k djk;kA
mlus vius fuekZ.k&dk;Z ds fy, fldUnj yksnh ds vkxjk ds fudV
gh ;equk ds ml ikj mfpr Hkwfe dh Lo;a [kkst dhA ;|fi tks Hkwfe pquh
xbZ og mls ilUn u Fkh fdUrq fdlh vU; vPNh Hkwfe ds vHkko ds
dkj.k mls ogh Hkwfe pquuh iM+hA mlus ogka tks pkjckx+ vFkok ‘kkgh ckx+
yxok;k mldk uke g’r cfg’r jD[kkA vkxjk esa mlus egy cuok;sA
gEekeksa ds fuekZ.k ls rks mls cM+h [kq’kh gqbZA og fy[krk gS] ^^eq>s
fgUnqLrku dh rhu ckrksa ls cM+h ?k`.kk Fkh& xjeh] vka/kh rFkk /kwyA bu
rhuksa ls gEekeksa }kjk gh j{kk gks ldrh gSA ;gka /kwy rFkk vka/kh dgWk
izos’k\ xjeh esa ;g bruk vf/kd BaMk gks tkrk gS fd yksx BaMd ds
dkj.k dkaius yxrs gSaA **[kyhQ+k] ‘ks[k+ tSu] ;wlqQ+ vyh rFkk vU; vehjksa
dks Hkh tgka dgha dksbZ vPNh Hkwfe feyh ogha mUgksaus gkSt+ lfgr cM+s
lqMkSy rFkk mRre dqvksa ,oa Hkouksa bR;kfn dk fuekZ.k djk fy;kA ykgkSj
rFkk nhckyiqj ds leku jgWaV ;gka Hkh eaxokdj yxok;s x;sA ,d izdkj
ds cM+s dq,a ftls ckbZ dgrs gSa] ml le; cM+s izpfyr FksA bcus crwrk us
1663

dksy ds vfrfjDr tqjQ+Rru dh Hkh ,d ckbZ dk mYys[k fd;k gSA ckcj
us Hkh vius vkxjk ds pkjckx ds fuekZ.k ds iwoZ gh ,d ckbZ dk fuekZ.k
izkjEHk djk fn;k FkkA blesa jgWaV Hkh yxok;k x;k ftlds }kjk ty
fd+ys pgkjnhokjh ls gksrk gqvk Åij ds m|kuksa esa tkrk FkkA /kkS y iq j esa
mlus 22 vxLr 1527 bZ0 dks igkM+h dks dVokdj ,d Nrnkj v”Vkdkj
gkSt+ ds fuekZ.k dk vkns’k fn;kA mlus ogk a ,d efLtn Hkh
cuokbZ A 5 vDVwcj 1528 bZ0 dks og ml Nrnkj gkSt+ dk fujh{k.k
djus ds fy, Lo;a igaqpkA mldk izos’k }kj HkyhHkkWafr lh/kk u gqvk FkkA
mlus dqN iRFkj dkVus okyksa dks cqyokdj vkns’k fn;k fd os gkSt+ ds
uhps dh lrg fpduh djds mlesa ty Hkj nsa vkSj ty dh lgk;rk ls
nhokj dks ,dlk dj nsaA bl izdkj ckcj us LOk;a viuh ns[k&js[k esa
nhokjska dks fpduk djk;kA blh izdkj lhdjh esa Hkh mlus vizSy 1527
bZ0 ds iwoZ gh ckx+ yxokus dk vkns’k ns fn;k Fkk fdUrq tc 14 vDVwcj
1528 bZ0 dks og lhdjh igqapk rks og ckx+ dh nhokj rFkk dq,a ds
fuekZ.k&dk;Z ls lUrq”V u gqvk vr% ftu yksxksa ds fliqnZ ;g dk;Z fd;k
x;k Fkk] mudks mlus rkM+uk Hkh nhA**
ckx+ksa esa Qy rFkk ikS/ks yxkus ls Hkh mls cM+h #fp FkhA dkcqy esa
igqapus ds mijkUr mlus ogka vkyw ckyw dh d+yesa yxokbZaA 1523&24bZ0
esa mlus tc igkM+ [kka dks ijkftr djds ykgkSj rFkk nhikyiqj dks
fot; fd;k rks ckx+s& oQ+k esa] tks mlus dkcqy esa lEHkor% 1508&9bZ0 esa
yxok;k Fkk] dsys ys tkdj yxok;sA blds iwoZ mlus ogka xUUks Hkh
yxok;s Fks vkSj mls vius bl iz;kl esa cM+h lQyrk fey pqdh FkhA
mlus xUus cq[kkjk rFkk cn[‘kka esa Hkh fHktok;sA fgUnqLrku esa Hkh mlus
dkcqy dh vksj ds Qyksa dks yxokus dk iz;Ru fd;kA mlus cY[k+ ds
[kjcwtk cksus okyksa dks cqyokdj vkxjk esa [kjcwts yxok;sA 24 twu 1529
bZ0 dks tc og dqN [kjcwts ysdj mifLFkr gqvk rks ckcj cM+k izlUu
gqvkA blh izdkj izdkj mlus vkxjk ds g’r cfg’r uked m|ku esa
mRre vaxwj dh csyksa ds yxkus dk Hkh vkns’k fn;k FkkA 24 twu 1529
bZ0 ds o`rkUr esa og fy[krk gS fd ^^ ‘ks[k xwju us eq>s Vksdjh Hkjdj
vaxwj Hksts tks cqjs u FksA fgUnqLrku esa bl izdkj ds [kjcwts rFkk vaxwj
mxkdj eq>s cM+h izlUurk gqbZA**
1553. Rizvi has also not found Babar’s entry in Ayodhya or
1664

construction of a mosque or direction to anyone including Mir
Baqi for construction of any building at Ayodhya.

1554. Some of the authors have appreciated the character of
Babar depicting him a holy, religious, kind hearted brave man
having respect for all the religions etc. This is placed before us
to deny even a possibility that Babar could have ordered to
construct a mosque in a religious place of others.

1555. Dr. Radhey Shyam in his book “Babar” (supra) on
page 441 has observed that Babar was what his fortune and
misfortune, man and environment, his foes and friends, his joys
and sorrows had made him. He was a soldier, a born warrior, a
seasoned statesman and an accomplished diplomat, a loving
husband and a man of many virtues seldom to be found in one
single individual. Dr. Radhey Shyam thereafter referred to the
comments of Abul Fazl about the qualities of Babar, describing
him as “bakht buland, himmat arjumand, Qudarat Kishwar
kushai, mulkdai, Koshish dar mamulai balad, Sarfi niyat bar
Rifayat abad, Khushdil wakhtan sipahi, zabt ashar az tabahi
(Akbar Nama)”. This appreciation by Abul Fazl is
understandable since he had to show great regards to the
grandfather of the Emperor in whose regime, he was employed.
1556. Dr. Radhey Shyam has further referred to the
comments of Nizamuddin Ahmad (Tabqat-i-Akbari), translation
II, page 40, Mirza Haidar Doghlat, the author of Tarikh-i-
Rashidi. Dr. Radhey Shyam proceeded to characterise Babar as
charitable, benevolent, liberal, kind, just, adjustable
temperament, robust vigour and dynamic personality. On page
443 Dr. Radhey Shyam said that “he was deeply imbued with
humen feelings.” On page 444 Dr. Radhey Shyam said that “he
followed his religion like a comman man without allowing it to
1665

prejudice his mind against the followers of other religions. Even
after the conquest of Hindustan he continued to maintain such an
attitude.” On page 447 he observed that “he never worked under
the influence of religion. . . . . . To him Shias and Sunnis were all
alike.”

1557. We would not like to make any comment on the above
observations as if we are sitting in appeal over the work of
learned author but suffice it to mention that the learned author
has ignored what is contained on page 554-555 of Beveridge’s
Baburnama (supra) where the breaking of the wine couplets in
pieces has been compared with the dashing of the God of the
idolaters. To the same effect is what has been translated by
Rizvi (supra) also.

1558. Besides, we may refer at this stage the own
observations of Dr. Radhey Shyam on page 451 of the book:

“As regards the destruction of the HIndu temples
there is historical evidence both in Babar’s support and
against him. During the course of his campaigns or
pleasure trips Babar occasionally came across large
number of Hindu temples. These temples provoked great
interest in him. Some of them he visited and appreciated
their architectural beauty. While at Gwalior in 1528 Babar
visited the fort, wherein he saw the places of Raja Man
Singh and Vikramaditya. On the west of Rahim Dad’s
garden he saw a “Lofty idol house.” This was famous Teli
Mandir which is said to have been constructed by Raja
Man Singh’s Gujari wife Mrignaini. Then in the Urwa
valley he saw the idol statues and he writes, “three sides of
the Urwa valley are solid rock, not the red rock of
Bayana but one paler in colour. On these sides people
1666

have cut out idol – statues, large and small. One large on
the south side being perhaps 20 qari (yards) high. These
idols are shewn quite naked without covering for the
privaties, ” writes that, “we rode ….to visit the idol-
houses of Gualiar. Some are two, and some are three
storeys high, each storey rather low, in the ancient
fashion. On their stone plainths are sculptured images.

Some idol-houses in College fashion, have portico, large
high cupola. In the lower celles are idols carved in the
rock. Except in the case of Jain idols in the Urwa valley,
Babar never gave orders for the destruction of the
temple of other places. As regards the Jain statutes of
the Urwa Valley he himself has mentioned, in his
Memoirs that the, “naked idols are its defect, I for my
part ordered them to be destroyed.” It is rather doubtful
whether this order was ever carried out. Mrs. Beveridge
in a brief note writes that, “they were already in a
mutilated conditions and they continue to be so until the
Jains repaired them with coloured plaster.” (emphasis
added)
1559. Thereafter, he has considered an inscription found at
Jami Masjid at Sambhal (in the State of U.P.), which is said to
have been constructed by demolishing Hari Mandir out of the
debris of that temple:

“It is related that at his orders famous Hari Mandir
at Sambhal was demolished and a Jami mosque was
constructed out of the debris of that temple by his famous
general Hindu Beg. An inscription on one of the walls of
the mosque reads :

                                                                          1667

        ‫رافع الویہ ملک وملل‬                    ‫جامع اش ٔیم فضل و کمال‬       ۱
        ‫باقی انبیہ علم وعمل‬                    ‫باسط اجنحہ امن و امان‬        ۲
        ‫حفظ الّلہ عزو جل‬                       ‫شاہ جم جاہ محمد بابر‬
        ‫روشن از پر تو ٓان شد سنبل‬              ‫ شمع دولت چوبرافروخت بہند‬۳
        ‫کہ مصون بادزنقصان وخلل‬                 ‫از پے ساختن ایں مسجد‬     ۴
        ‫کہ بود عمدہ ارکان و دل‬                  ‫کرد فرمان بکمیں بندہ خویش‬
        ‫آں باخلق نکو گشتہ مثل‬                  ‫میر با عقل و خردہندو بیگ‬     ۵
        ‫یافت اتمام بہ توفیق ازل‬                ‫چوں زفرمان شہنشاہ جہاں‬       ۶
        ‫یکم از شہر ربیع الول‬             ‫سال تاریخ و مہ دوزش گشتہ‬
                           "Translation by author"

The Collector of the buildings of grace and beauty the
raiser
of the standards of rule and faith,
the spreader of the wings of peace and tranquillity, the builder
of the buildings of knowledge and deed,
Muhammad Babar, a Jam in dignity–May God Almighty have
him in His protection,
Kindled in India the lamp of power, when a ray of it fell
upon Sambhal,
To build this mosque may it be protected from destruction
and decay,
He gave orders to his mean slave, who is one of the principal
officers,
Mir Hindu Beg, the intelligent and wise who is an example to
others in polite manners,
And when in consequence of the order of the sovereign of the
world by guidance of Providence to the mosque was
completed.”

1560. Its date is first day of the month of Rabi L 933 H.
(December 1526 A.D.)
1561. Dr. Radhey Shyam, however, has then doubted
1668

correctness of the contents of the said inscription on pages 454-
457:

“This inscription clearly mentions that at Babar’s
orders the mosque was built and completed on the first day
of the month of Rabi-ul-Awwal 933 H./6th December 1526
by Hindu Beg. But it is quite surprising that Babar who
was quite festidious in mentioning about everything that
concerned him or even others, has not mentioned about the
construction of a mosque by Hindu Beg at Sambhal. Nor
did he mention that he gave orders to Hindu Beg to
demolish any Hindu temple and construct a mosque over it.
There is no reference to any order for the destruction of a
Hindu temple and construction of a mosque by Hindu Beg
at Sambhal in his Memoirs. Babar visited Sambhal in
Sept.-Oct. 1527 and stayed there for three days but in his
Memoirs he does not say a word about the fanatical
activities of Hindu Beg there. His annoyance at the
destruction of the Hindu temple by Hindu Beg at Sambhal
is reflected in his silence and his indifference towards the
whole affair. During the years 1526-27 his position in
Hindustan was so precarious that it was not possible for
him to take any drastic action against any general, Hindu
Beg being one of them; even though they might have
continued to commit gruesome acts in the name of their
master. However, it is definite that though Babar’s name
was associated with the construction of the mosque, as was
the prevailing practice, the Hindu temple was not
demolished at his orders. Hindu Beg might have
demolished the temple on his own account and even did not
care to refer this matter to his master.

1669

Nevertheless, the whole affair has aroused
controversy. Mr. Carlleyele is of the opinion that the Jami
mosque which is still standing amidst the beautiful
surrounding was not constructed by Hindu Beg and it is of
much earlier period. The district Gazetteer of United
Provinces (Moradabad) mentions that “Babar’s inscription
in the mosque is a great historical forgery of all times.”
And the account of the temple and the mosque given in it is
as follows: ‘The erection of Hari Mandir is variously
ascribed to Prithviraj, to a Raja named Jagat Singh and
one Nar Singh, the grandson of Raja Vikram Sen one of the
Dors of Baran. This temple no longer exists and its place is
taken by a striking mosque, which forms the conspicuous
feature in the landscape for miles around. This building is
mainly of stone, which is certainly the material employed
for the great central dome, for the outer walls and porch
and for the flooring of the broad courtyard.” In 1874 Mr.
Carlleyele visited and inspected the mosque and was
convinced that the dome was of Hindu workmanship, but
the bricks were of Musalman workmanship. The whole of
the mosque is coated with plaster so that it is impossible to
ascertain the material. The wings are divided by a lateral
row of pillars into two aisels and each had three arched
openings on the courtyard. A flight of stone steps on either
side gives access to the roof of the mosque, from which fine
view of the town and the surrounding country can be
obtained. Mr. Carlleyele came to the conclusion that the
conversion of the temple into a mosque was of very
recent date. He based his decision on the fact that there
has been recent litigation on the subject of the site between
1670

the Musalmans and Hindus and appears to have been
influenced by the arguments of the latter to the effect that
the old inscriptions on the mosque walls were impudent
forgeries. This claim of the Hindus was of course rejected
in the civil courts. Mr. Carlleyele could not see the
documents going back to the days of Jahangir, now in
possession of the guardians of the mosque. General
Cunningham has repudiated the suggestion that the
inscription were not genuine. The most important of these,
states that the mosque was built by Hindu Beg at the orders
of Babar in December 1526. It is certainly curious that the
temple should have remained till that date, for Sambhal
had long been the seat of the Muslim government, and it is
even more surprising that a noted inconoclast like Sikandar
Lodi should have allowed a building of such sanctity to
stand in his temporary capital. . . . . . But the mosque at
Sambhal might well be older than Babar, to judge from its
appearance. The architecture resembles that of Pathan
buildings such as great mosque of Badaon and the huge
sloping bastions on the west. The whole structure is very
plain, severe, and massive, and if the Hindu materials have
been employed the ornamentation has been very effectively
concealed, since the only traces of Hindu covering visible
are two rosettes on the stone slabs of the steps leading from
the eastern gateway to the quadrangle. In the middle of the
latter is a tank and fountain, filled from a large well
outside the gateway. Whether Babar built it or simply
repaired the mosque cannot be positively stated, but it is
curious that the Ain-i-Akbari has referred to the celebrated
temple of Vishnu at Sambhal. An inscription in the south
1671

wing states that Rustam Khan Deccani repaired the
mosque in 1657, while a similar tablet in the north wing
was erected by one Sayyid Qutb in 1626. The two
inscriptions above the outer and inner arches of the central
chamber record the restorations affected by the Musalmans
of the town and district about 1845.” Thus Carlleyele’s
report asserts that Jami Masjid of Sambhal is of earlier
date (ii) the inscription is fake (iii) that it was constructed
much later.

But the arguments given against the construction of
the mosque by Hindu Beg are not tenable. Had the mosque
been of earlier date there should have been an inscription
on it bearing the date of its construction. The grounds on
which the inscription which assigns the construction of the
mosque to Hindu Beg, has been declared fake, have not
been indicated. Then the report itself records that in the
mosque at places the use of the debris of a Hindu temple is
visible. In addition to it may also be observed that ever
since the occupation of Sambhal by the Mughals in
December 1526 or a little earlier till the date when it was
conferred on Humayun in jagir, the position of the Mughals
there had always been very precarious. This is borne out
by the fact that after its occupation Ali Yusuf was appointed
to hold its charge. After his death Abdullah Kitabdar was
sent and thereafter Hindu Beg and both of them returned to
Agra after a few days and waited on Babar. Why did they
return from there without being summoned to emperor’s
presence? Babar does not mention the reason which forced
them to return from Sambhal. Nor does any other
authority. It can however be presumed that the Hindu
1672

population which was so hostile to Hindu Beg did not
permit him to stay there any longer and to continue to
display the zeal of a fanatic. Nor did Babar like to send him
again to Sambhal. Even if it is conceded that the mosque is
of the earlier date, it can be presumed that its repair by
Hindu Beg was not liked by the Hindu population.”
1562. In the subsequent part Dr. Radhey Shyam proceeded
to consider Ayodhya dispute also as a parrelel to the Sambhal’s
building.

1563. But if we consider what has been writeen in
Babarnama by the Babar in straight words without twisting or
mincing them we find that like any other brave, couragious,
tactful but brutal warrior, Babar also possess all these qualities.
It is true that he was truly religious but it means that he was a
complete Islamic person and lacked tolerance atleast to the idol
worshippers. He had no hitch in destroying idols worshipped by
the inhabitants of India at that time and this we find very visibly
from the words which are translated by Mrs. Beveridge from
Babar’s manuscript of “Tuzuk-i-babri” as is evident from page
554-555 as under:

“And I made public the resolution to abstain from
wife, which had been hidden in the treasury of my breast.

The victorious servants, in accordance with the
illustratious order, dashed upon the earth of contempt and
destruction the flagons and the cups, and the other utensils
in gold and silver, which in their number and their
brilliance were like the stars of the firmament. They
dashed them in pieces, as, God willing! soon will be
dashed the gods of the idolaters,–and they distributed the
fragments among the poor and needy.” (emphasis added)
1673

1564. In respect to the inhabitants of Hindustan, at page 518
of the aforesaid book it says as under:

“Most of the inhabitants of Hindustan are pagans;
they call a pagan a Hindu. Most Hindus believe in the
transmigration of souls. All artisans, wage-earners, and
officials are Hindus. In our countries dwellers in the wilds
(i.e. nomads) get tribal names.”

1565. Like other invaders whenever he defeated the local
Rulers, his army did all such acts of loot, general massacre etc.
While conquering Sambhal on page 528 the act of the army of
Babur is mentioned as under:

“Malik Qasim cut off the heads of part of his force,
took many horses, a few elephants and mass of booty.”
1566. After defeating Rana Sanga and his other supporters,
at page 576 of the Babarnama by Beveridge it is mentioned
that as a trophy of victory an order was given to set up a pillar of
pagan heads on the infact-hill (koh-Bacha) between which and
his camp the battle had been fought.

1567. Similarly, on page 587 of the aforesaid book on 27th
September, 1527 AD he mentions:

“Humayun had left Darwish (-i-ali) and Yusuf-i-ali in
Sambal; they crossed one river, fought Qutb Sirwani and a
party of rajas, beat them well and killed a mass of men.

They sent a few heads and an elephant into Kul while we
were there.” (emphasis added)
1568. Though in the army of Babur Hindustani soldiers were
also included but it appears that he did not repose much
confidence therein as is evident from page 547 of the aforesaid
book:

“As little confidence was placed in Hindustani
1674

people————”

1569. As an invader Babar entered the Indian subcontinent,
conquered it and did what he could or found necessary to claim
victory which nobody can comment atleast today. It is said that
all is fair in love and war and laws of war are not set by pen
since they are decided in a war field by those who are fighting
or by their commanders. Discussion may be held as to whether
the manner in which a war took place, fought and the action of
the soldiers therein was justified or not but the fact remains that
before the matter has been taken in 20th Century by various
countries to lay down certain principles to be observed during
war and also recognise certain rights of prisoners of war, prior
thereto no such principle in general were observed by the Rulers
of different countries though at local level some kind of practice
with respect to time etc. might have been followed. What had
been done several hundreds years back by a king invading a
country or between war of two kings is obviously beyond the
pale of judicial review of this Court and of any Court
functioning in independent India after the promulgation of our
Constitution on 26.01.1950. We have not been shown of any
authority by any learned counsels that we can examine the
legality, correctness or genuinity of an action of a Ruler prior to
the enforcement of British enactments in the subcontinent.
1570. However, the attempt by some of the authors to glorify
or justify brutal massacre or action of some of the invaders or
Rulers even if they might have conquered the subcontinent, by
providing justification, explanation etc. is not understandable for
the reason that the things which are evident and straight cannot
be clothed with a velvet cover and would not provide a shell to
give it a different colour. It shall only mislead the public at large
1675

and in particular the students of history. In our view, the
historical events must be placed straight without any distortion,
without any addition of words and without providing any
explanation or justification in the words of the author as the
same would be nothing but a sheer conjecture and surmise. If
we claim that Babar felt happy having seen the mound of human
heads and still we tell somebody that he was a kind hearted
religious man, had no love for violence it would a blatant lie.
This kind of attitude on the part of some of authors whose work
has been placed before us for our consideration shows that these
authors can go to the extent of glorification of any kind of
misdeed which in the present day’s civilised society can never
appreciate or swallow. If innocent persons are killed either in
terrorist activities or naxalite activities, in our view the action of
these persons ex facie is inhuman, amounts to henious offence,
deserved to be condemned without mincing words so as not to
dilute the degree of violence and atrocity committed by them
irrespective of the purpose, objective or whatever is behind such
activity. Any other view is nothing but a serious contempt to the
very mankind and would be a clear disrespect to those innocents
who become victim of such incidents. Though the present days
activities may not have any comparison with the wars and
battles fought hundreds and thousands years back but to find out
a positive character in such activities of the the Ruler/Kings
under whom the army had done all these kind of brutalities
would be a thought of abnormal minds. The lack of respect of
Emperor Babar to idols meant for worship has already been
demonstrated above and is fortified from what has been
mentioned at page 611 of the Book “Baburnama” by Beveridge
stating that he did not hesitate in destroying the idols on
1676

28.09.1528 at Uruwa (Gwalior) where he found three sites
occupied by a solid rock wherein the people had cut out idols
statue large and small and he ordered for destruction thereof.
1571. Ex. 82 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 218C1/1-20) contain certain
pages from “Memoirs of Baber- Emperor of India” by Lieut.
Colonel F.G. Talbot, first published 1974 by Ess Ess
Publications, Delhi. This work is mainly based on the English
translation of “Tuzuk-I-Babari” by John Leyden and William
Erskine, first published in 1826 and it is said that the book being
out of print for many years, therefore the Memoirs of Babar are
practically now unknown. The author, however, has also taken
help from Stanley Lane-Poole’s Introduction to Babar. Pages no.
I to XV from Chapter “Introduction”, 1 to 3, 46 to 49 and 196 to
213 are before us. The attempt on the part of Sri Jilani is that
from no part of the book it does appear that Babar ever
encouraged destruction of Hindu temple or religious place of
other religions. Sri H.S. Jain, on the contrary, submitted that his
disliking to Hindus and other religions is writlarge from the fact
that he addressed Hindus as ‘Pagans’ and declared war against
Rana Sanga as ‘Holy war’ which shows his character and
extreme religious fervour towards ‘Islam’. He referred to the
following passage from page 207 of the book (Paper No.
218C1/16) :

“From the eleventh year of my age till now, I had
never spent two festivals of the Ramza in the same place.
Last year’s festival I had spent in Agra. In order to keep up
the usage, on Sunday night the thirtieth, I proceeded to
Sikri to keep the feast there. A stone platform was erected
on the north-east of the Garden-of-Victory, on which a set
of large tents was pitched, and in them I passed the festival.

1677

The night on which we left Agra, Mir Ali departed. He was
extremely fond of playing cards, and had asked for some,
which I sent him.”

1572. The issues need to be decided by this Court does not
get any help from the above documents. One thing, however, is
clear that the Babar came to India with a clear intention to stay
and rule. In furtherance therefor, for keeping the morale of his
force high and for other reasons, he took all necessary steps as
he found expedient. It is evident from page 208 (Paper No.
218C1/17) and page 210 (Paper No. 218C1/18) :

“Hitherto the peoples of India had regarded Baber
as a temporary raider who would depart as soon as he had
gathered enough spoil; but when they found he had come to
stay they began to consider what policy to pursue, and in
weariness of incessant warfare began to see the merits of a
master.

Three thousand Afghans from the Doab were the first
to come over to him, and were rewarded with territories in
Oudh, which was still in revolt.

One of the first acts of the Conqueror was to lay out
a road from Agra to Kabul, and the distance having been
actually measured, a tower twenty-four feet in height was
erected at every fourteen miles, while at every sixteen miles
a post-house for six horses was built, and an allowance
fixed as a provision for post-house keeper, courier,
grooms, and the keep of horses. Where the road lay
through a rich man’s territory he was made to pay all the
costs of maintenance.” (Page 208)
“The affairs of Hindustan had now been reduced to a
certain degree of order. The revenue from land was
1678

returned at 4,212,000/-. This was from land alone and by
no means represented the total income.” (Page 210)
1573. The life of Babar after his conquest was very short
inasmuch it is not in dispute that he died on 26th December 1530
AD at Agra. Thereafter in the light of his last wish, he was
buried in the garden on the hillside at Kabul.
1574. Ex. 83 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 220C1/1-11) and Ex. 84
(Suit-4) (Paper No. 222C1/1-5) are also the photocopies of
certain pages from “Babarnama” translated by Yugjeet
Navalpuri Edn. 2002 and nothing has been referred therefrom
by the learned Counsels for the parties. We also do not find any
thing therefrom which may throw any light for deciding the
issues in question.

1575. Next in this context is about the persons whose name
is claimed to have been mentioned on the inscriptions at the
disputed site, i.e., “Mir Baqi”. In the transcript of Fuhrer it
mentions “Mir Khan” while in other transcript it is mentioned as
“Mir Baqi”.

1576. Sri P.N. Misra, Advocate has vehemently argued that
the entire Baburnama does not mention any person in the army
or otherwise relating to Babar with the name of Mir Baqi. He
says that Baqi was a military decoration in the army of Babar
and Mir was a civil honour to the persons of respectability etc.
He says that the part of the army sent to Ayodhya was headed
with Timur Begh, Baqi Tashkindi etc. but it does not mention
any person as Mir Baqi.

1577. Sri P.N. Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) supported the above stand and also
contended that there is nothing in the said diary maintained by
Babar that he ever entered Ayodhya either in March 1528 or in
1679

April 1528. It is common ground that the Babar-Nama misses
the text between 2nd April to 18th September 1528 AD. The
reason we are not concerned. Sri Jilani raised the above
argument in order to buttress his submission that the Babar
when did not enter Ayodhya himself there was no question of
any demolition of a temple by him and construction of mosque.
The pleadings of Hindu parties in connected suits to this effect
are not correct, is what he tried to persuade us. Sri Misha,
however, agree so far as the former part is concerned that there
was no occasion for Babar himself to direct for demolition of
any temple and construction of mosque since he did not enter
Ayodhya but he tried to explain the things otherwise by
submitting that this also shows that the disputed building was
not constructed in 1528 AD and there is no historical document
of contemporary period to substantiate the above claim of
defendants no. 6 to 8 and 10 in Suit-1, the plaintiffs of Suit-4
and all muslim defendants in Suit-3 and 5. Sri Mishra also
pointed out that Shaikh Bayazid was then governing
Awadh/Ayodhya. The Army Commanders of Babar who
crossed the river so as to enter Ayodhya were Tardi Beg of Quj
Beg, Baba Chuhra, Baqi Shaghawal and Chin Timur. It is
pointed out that there is no person named as Mir Baqi in the
entire Babur-Nama. Sri Mishra placed before the Court Babur-
Nama by Beveridge to show that it mentions Baqi Beg
Chaghaniani; Qib Chaq Turk; Baqi Gagiani Afghan; Baqi Hiz;
Kwaja Baqi son of Yahiya son of Ehrari who was murdered in
1500 AD; Baqi Beg Taskindi; Baqi Beg Shaghawal; Baqi Beg
Mingbashi; Baqi Takhan. Sri Mishra submitted that there is no
mention of any Mir Baqi in Babur-Nama. Our attention was also
drew to page 684 of Beveridge’s Babur-Nama to show that it is
1680

Baqi Tashkindi who came from Awadh (Ayodhya) on
13.06.1529 AD to meet Babar. Page 685 of Babur-Nama shows
that Babar sent Baqi Shaghawal on 16.06.1529 while camping
near Kalpi to collect information about his enemy, i.e., Biban
and Bayazid. On 17.06.1529 AD it is mentioned that one of
Baqi Beg’s retainers came informing that Baqi had beaten scouts
of Biban and Bayazid, killed one of their good men, Mubarak
Khan Jalwani and some others, sent in several heads, and one
man alive. He says that Baqi Shaghawal has been addressed as
Baqi Beg and Baqi Tashkindi who came from Ayodhya has
been addressed as Baqi but there is no mention of any of the
person addressed as Mir Baqi. It is contended by Sri Mishra,
Advocate that the later historians/translators, of their own,
identified Baqi Tashkindi as Baqi Shaghawal as well as Mir
Baqi though in the entire Babur-Nama, Babar has not addressed
anybody or any one as Mir Baqi. He drew our attention to
certain persons whose name started with the word Mir, namely,
Mir Bujurg Tirmizi; Mir Khurd Bakawal; Mir Mughul son of
Abdul Wahab Saghawal; Mir Sang-Tarash; Mir Zadas of
Khwast and none of these persons, he submit, can be said to be
possibly addressed as Mir Baqi.

1578. In Lieut. Colonel F.G. Talbot’s under the title
“Memoirs of Baber Emperor of India First of the Great
Moghuls” (Supra) on page 90, with respect to the events of the
year 1504 AD there is a reference of Baqi Beg and on page 91
for the same period there is reference of Baqi Beg as well as
Baqi Chaghiani. The relevant extract whereof are mentioned as
under:

“At this same period, Baki Beg repeatedly, and with
much earnestness, urged his sentiments, that to have two
1681

sovereigns in one country, and two generals in one army,
was an unfailing source of confusion and ruin, and
inevitably productive of rebellion, mutiny, and finally of
dissolution; as the poet says–

‘Ten dervishes may repose on one cloak,
But two sovereigns cannot be contained in the same
climate.

The man of God, when he eats half a loaf,
Divides the other half among the poor and needy.
If a king subdues a whole kingdom, nay a climate,
Still, as before, he covets yet another.”

At this period, information arrived that Sheibani
Khan had taken Andejan. On hearing this news, Khosrou
Shah, unable to support himself in Kundez, took the route
of Kabul with his whole force. No sooner had he left
Kundez, than one of his old and confidential servants
occupied that fortress, and declared for Sheibani Khan.
Just as I reached the Red River, three or four thousand
heads of houses of the Moghul clans, who had been
dependent on Khosrou Shah, came and joined me, with
their whole families. Here, in order to gratify Baki Beg, I
was obliged to discharge Kamber Ali, the Moghul, who has
been so often mentioned. He was a thoughtless and rude
talker; and Baki Beg could not put up with his manners.

When Khosrou Shah learned that the Moghul tribes
had joined me, he felt his own helplessness; and, seeking
no remedy left, sent his son-in-law as his envoy, to make
professions of submission and allegiance, and to assure me
that, if I would enter into terms with him, he would come
and submit himself. As Baki Cheghaniani, a man of much
1682

weight, though steadily attached to my service, yet was not
without a natural bias in favour of his brother, he
recommended a compromise to be made, on condition that
Khosrou’s life should be spared, and his property left
entirely to his own disposal. A treaty was accordingly
concluded on these terms.”

1579. Another name, namely, Baqi Tarkhan is mentioned at
page 11 of Talbot’s Memoirs of Baber (supra) and that is also
with reference to a much earlier period. The extract wherein the
above name is mentioned on page 11 is as under:

“Baki Terkhan was another. In the time of Sultan
Ali Mirza, he rose to great consequence, his retainers
amounting to five or six thousand. He was far from being in
a proper state of subjection or obedience to Sultan Ali
Mirza. He was very fond of hawking, and is said to have
had seven hundred falcons at one time. His manners and
habits were such as cannot well be described; he was
educated and grew up in the midst of magnificence and
state.”

1580. Besides, on page 4 it mentions the name of Mir Ghias
Taghai; on page 26 it mentions about Mir Shaha and has
appreciated about his gallantries; on page 114 there is a
reference of Mir Beder and his dancing in the events relating to
the year 1506 AD; on page 116 there is reference of Mir Jaan
and his singing; on page 174/175 Mir Miran is mentioned and
on page 207 Mir Ali is referred but there is no reference of any
Mir Baqi. Talbot has not said anything about the Ayodhya visit
except that of page 208 where he has referred to Awadh once
only in the following manner:

“Thee thousand Afghans from the Doab were the
1683

first to come over to him, and were rewarded with
territories in Oudh, which was still in revolt.”

1581. On behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-4) copies of certain pages
of “Mughal Kalin Bharat-Babar (1526-1530) by Syed Athar
Abbas Rizvi (Supra) have been filed which are marked as
Exhibit 85, Suit-4 (paper No. 223C1 and 224C1/1-62). These
photocopies are from the 1960 edition of the book. Pages No.
19-20, 49-50, 232-233, 272-281, 310-313, 318-320, 328-341,
353, 375, 380-387 and 420-421 have been filed. We, however,
are referring from 2010 reprint since this book in its entirety is
available to the Court. On page 272, the book narrates the
incidents of 28.03.1528 and 02.04.1528 which is almost similar
to what is contained in Beveridge’s Babur-Nama for the said
date but since it is a translation by a Muslim writer having
authority on the subject which is admitted to the plaintiffs of
Suit-4 also, we reproduce the same as under:

“vo/k igaqpuk
vo/k ls nks ,d iM+ko iwoZ phu rhaewj lqYrku ds ikl ls vkdj
fdlh us lwpuk nh fd] ” ‘k=q ljnk ds ml ikj MVk gqvk gS vr%
dqed Hskth tk;sA ” 1000 ohjksa dks I`kFkd djds d+jkpk ds v/khu dqed
gsrq Hkstk A
¼28 ekpZ½& ‘kfuokj 7 jtc dks geus vo/k ls 2&3 dqjksg ij
xxj ,oa ljnk ds laxe ds Åij iM+ko fd;k A ml fnu rd ‘ks[k
ck;t+hn ljnk ds ml ikj vo/k ds lkeus jgk gksxk A og lqYrku ds
ikl Ik= Hkstrk ,oa ¼laf/k ds fo”k; esa ½ okrkZ djrk jgk fdUrq lqYrku us
mldh /kwrZrk ls voxr gksus ds dkj.k d+jkpk dks e/;kUgksRrj dh uekt+
ds le; lwpuk fHktok;h vkSj unh ikj djus dh O;oLFkk djus yxk A
tc d+jkpk lqYrku ds ikl igqap x;k rks mUgksaus rRdky unh ikj dh A
ogka yxHkx 50 v’okjksgh rFkk 3 ;k 4 gkFkh FksA os ;q) u dj lds vkSj
Hkkx [kMs+ gq, A dqN yksxksa dks ?kksM+s ls fxjkdj muds flj dkV Mkys
x;s vkSj mUgsa ¼ esjs ikl ½ Hskt fn;k x;k A
1684

lqYrku ds ihNs&ihNs ch[kwc lqYrku] d++wt csx ds ¼HkkbZ ½ rjnh
csx] ckck pqgjk rFkk ckd+h ‘kx+k oy us Hkh unh ikj dh A ftu yksxksa
us buds iwoZ unh ikj dh Fkh] mu yksxksa us ‘ks[k ck;t+hn dk lk;adky
dh uekt+ rd ihNk fd;k fdUrq og taxy esa ?kqldj Hkkx x;k A phu
rhewj jkf= esa caWa/ks gq, ty ds rV ij Bgjk vkSj vk/kh jkr esa
fonzksfg;ksa ds ihNs jokuk gqvk A og 40 dqjksg dh ;k=k djds ml LFkku
ij] tgka ‘ks[k ck;t+hn ds ifjokj okys ,oa lEcU/kh Bgjs Fks] igqap x;k A
os Hkh Hkkx x;s gksaxs A mlus ml LFkku ls nzqrxkeh v’okjksfg;ksa dks
izR;sd fn’kk esa mudk ihNk djus ds fy, Hkstk A ckd+h ‘kx+k oy us
dqN ohjksa lfgr ‘k=qvksa dks HksM+ ds leku Hkxk fn;k vkSj muds ifjokjksa
ds ikl igaqp dj dqN vQx+kuksa dks cUnh cuk fy;k A ge dqN fnu rd
vo/k rFkk ml {sk= ds ‘kklu izcU/k dks lqO;ofLFkr djus ds fy, ml
iM+ko ij Bgjs jgs A vo/k ds 7&8 dksl nwj ljnk unh ds rV ij ,d
LFkku Fkk ftlds fo”k; esa dgk tkrk Fkk fd og cM+h vPNh f’kdkj&xkg
gS A ehj eqgEen tkykcku dks bl vk’k; ls Hkstk x;k fd og xxj
unh rFkk ljnk unh ds ?kkV dk fujh{k.k djds ykSV vk;sa A
¼2 vizSy½& o`gLifrokj 12 jatc dks geus f’kdkj ds mn~ns’;
ls izLFkku fd;kA”

1582. The Rizvi’s translation has referred to a large number
of persons whose names have the title of ‘Mir’ on pages 716 and
717 as under:

“ehaj vrk mYykg; ehaj vcqy cd+k; ehaj vCnqy x+Q+wj; ehj
vykmyeqYd frjfet+h; ehj vyh; ehj vyh csx; ehj vyh ‘ksj; ehj vyh
‘ksj uokbZ; ehj bczkghe; ehj bczkghe d+kuwuh; ehj [k+yhQ+k; ehj [kqnZ; ehj
[kqnZ cdkoy; ehj x+;kl; ehj x+;kl rx+kbZ; ehj x+;klqn~nhu; ehj xslw;
ehj tku; ehj tku bZjnh; ehj rhewjh [kjcwt+k; ehj njos’k eqgEen
l+kjcku; ehj Q+kft+y; ehj cnz; ehj ehjku; ehj eqx+wy; ehj eqjrkt+; ehj
eqgEen; ehj eqgEen vyh taxtax; ehj eqgEen tkykcku; ehj eqgEen
ukfod; ehj eqgEen c[+’kh; ehj eqgEen ;wlqQ+; ehj ‘kkg d+wphu; ehj ‘kkg
csx; ehj ‘ksjhe; ehj laxrjk’k; ehj ljs cjguk; ehj lqYrku vyh
[+okcchu; ehj lSf;n vyh genkuh; ehj lSf;n jQ+hmn~nhu eqgfn~nl
1685

lQ+oh; ehj geg; ehj gek; ehj gqlsu; ehj gqlsu eqvEekbZ”

1583. On page 659 he has mentioned the words Amir Mir
Baqi but that is with reference to his translation of stone
inscriptions said to be there on the disputed building with which
we have already discussed. In the entire translation of Babur-
Nama and other description there is no mention of anyone as
Mir Baqi. The aforesaid work also nowhere mention or shows
that Babar at any point of time did enter Ayodhya or Awadh
after reaching near thereto on 28.03.1528 though it is said that
he stayed thereat for about a few days.

Traveller’s Account
1584. There are two travellers account which have to be
considered at this stage. One that of “William Finch” and
another is that of “Father Joseph Tieffenthaler”.
1585. William Foster published a book, namely, “Early
Travels in India” (1985 First Edition distributed by Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) which contains the narratives
of seven Englishmen who traveled in northern and western India
during the reigns of Akbar and Jahangir. These travelers are
Ralph Fitch (1583-91); John Mildenhall (1599-1606); William
Hawkins (1608-13); William Finch (1608-11); Nicholas
Withington (1612-16); Thomas Coriyat (1612-17) and Edward
Terry (1616-19). William Finch came to India in August 1608
and landed at Surat with Capt. Hawkins. With respect to
Ayodhya, Finch has written on page 176 of the book as under :

“To Oude (Ajodhya) from thence are 50 c.; a citie of
ancient note, and seate of a Potan king, now much ruined;
the castle built foure hundred yeeres agoe. Heere are
also the ruines of Ranichand(s) castle and houses,
which the Indians acknowled(g)e for the great God,
1686

saying that he tooke flesh upon him to see the tamasha
of the world. In these ruines remayne certaine Bramenes,
who record the names of all such Indians as wash
themselves in the river running thereby; which custome,
they say, hath continued foure Iackes of yeeres (which is
three hundred ninetie foure thousand and five hundred
yeeres before the worlds creation). Some two miles on the
further side of the river is a cave of his with a narrow
entrance, but so spacious and full of turnings within that a
man may well loose himself there, if he take not better
heed; where it is thought his ashes were buried. Hither
resort many from all parts of India, which carry from
hence in remembrance certaine graines of rice as blacke as
gun-powder, which they say have beene reserved ever
since. Out of the ruines of this castle is yet much gold
tryed. Here is greate trade, and such abundance of Indian
asse-horne that they make hereof bucklers and divers sorts
of drinking cups. There are of these hornes, all the Indians
affirme, some rare of great price, no jewell comparable,
some esteeming them the right unicornes horne.”

Photocopy of page 176 of the book is Exhibit 19 Suit-5
(Register 21 Page 271)
1586. William Finch who visited Ayodhya between 1608-
1611 AD neither found any building of importance of Muslim
nor Muslim population nor any activity of Muslims noteworthy
in Ayodhya. Had the building in dispute been constructed in
1528 i.e. just about 80 years back, it is quite difficult to
understand that would not have been considered to be a place of
importance and could have gone unnoticed by Finch. He has
specifically referred to Castle of Lord Ram Chandra Ji which, in
1687

his understanding, constructed about 400 years ago. Obviously,
it could not be related to the building in dispute as such. Here
also what he says that there existed ruins of Ram Chandra’s
castle and houses which the Indians acknowledge the Great
God. He also says that in these ruins certain Brahmins used to
record the names of visiting Indians which is a practice still in
continuance in various holy places and those Brahmin people
are normally called as Panda/Mahraj where one can find the
record of hundreds of years back belonging to their predecessors
who had earlier visited these holy places.
1587. Sri Jilani sought to argue that write up of William
Finch lends no credence for it does not mention very clearly as
to which place in Ayodhya he visited. However, Sri Jilani also
could not suggest that in Ayodhya there is any place other than
that which included the disputed site which may or could be
considered to be the fort of King Dashrath or Lord Rama in
ancient times. At least this much cannot be disputed that
William Finch’s travel account did not find mention of any big
building known as “Babri Mosque” to have existed in Ayodhya
having been constructed just about 80 years ago before his visit.
His travel account suggests that the number of Muslim
inhabitants in Ayodhya city in earlier 17th Century was
negligible.

1588. Next comes another travel account of “Father Joseph
Tieffenthaler” who visited India sometime in 1740 and
remained here for about 20-25 years. He also visited Ayodhya
during his above stay and had written travel account which was
written in Latin in the book “DESCRIPTION : HISTORIQUE
ET GEOGRAPHIQUE : D E L’ I N D E” under the title
“TOME 1. NOUVELLE EDITION. Contenant la
1688

Geographic de l’Ind-Uftan, avec. 39,. Planches”. English
translation of which is “HISTORICAL AND
GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF INDIA” VOLUME 1
NEW EDITION containing the Geography of Hindustan, with
39 illustrations”. The account of Tieffenthaler was translated in
French and was published by M. Jean Bernoulli in 1786, photo
copy of the first two pages of the French publication as well as
pages no. 252 to 255 was provided to this Court which has been
marked as Exhibit No. OOS 5-133 (Paper No. 107 C/96-104)
(Register 21 page 273-289).

1589. The aforesaid documents were written in French
(except of very few words which were in Lati). Since the
English translation supplied by plaintiffs (Suit-5) was seriously
disputed, we directed the Government of India to get an
authenticated English Translation of the aforementioned pages
which have been made available to us and after giving
opportunity to the parties to file their objection has been
admitted vide order dated 10.03.2010. The relevant part in the
aforesaid report, i.e.,pages 253 is reproduced as under:

“L’empereur Aurengzebe a fait demolir la fortereffe
appelee ramcot, & a eleve au meme lieu un temple
mahometan, a triple coupole. D’autres difent qu’il a etc
conftruit par Babor. On y voit I 4 colonnes de pierre
noire, hautes de 5 empans, qui occupoient l’emplacement
de la fortereffe. Douze de ces colonnes portent maintenant
les arcades intericures de la Mosquee: deux (de ces I 2)
font placees a la porte du cloitre. Les deux autres font
partie du tombeau d’un certain Maure. On raconte que ces
colonnes, ou plutot ces debris de colonnes artiftement
travaillees ont etc apportees de l’ile de Lanca ou Selendip
1689

[appelee Ceylan par les Europeens] par Hanumann, Roi
des Singes.”

Emperor Aurengzebe got the fortress called
Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple
domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that is
was constructed by ‘Babor’. Fourteen black stone pillars
of 5 span high, which had existed at the site of the
fortress, are seen there. Twelve of these pillars now
support the interior arcades of the mosque. Two (of these

12) are placed at the entrance of the cloister. The two
others are part of the tomb of some ‘Moor’. It is narrated
that these pillars, or rather this debris of the pillars
skillfully made, were brought from the island of Lanca or
Selendip (called Ceylan by the Europeans) by Hanuman,
King of Monkeys.

(English transliteration)
1590. Sri Mishra pointed out that there appears to be an
english translation also of the travel record of Tieffenthaler. He
refers to the english translation of Tieffenthaler in para 5 of his
written argument and gave a brief biodata of father Tieffenthaler
in para 6 which read:

“5. Father Josef Tieffenthaler, a Jesuit Missionary and
noted geographer on Hindustan visited Ayodhya in 1770
did not find any Inscriptions even that superscription
“Allah” mentioned by the Ld. District Judge in 1886.

From Josef Tiffenthaler’s description it appears that at that
time also Hindus were worshipping inside the
Ramjanmsthan Temple alleged to be converted into
mosque either by Aurangzeb or by Babar. As he was not
only a Missionary but an excellent Historian, Geographer
1690

and great linguistic having mastery over several languages
including Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit, there was no
possibility of overlooking the alleged Inscriptions by him
as it would have enabled him to tell the people with
certainty the name of the Tyrant Emperor who attempted
to convert Sri Ramajanmasthan Temple into Mosque.
English translation of a portion of his book “Descriptio
Indiae” being description of Oude including the Sri
Ramajanmasthan has been published on pages 312 to 317
in the ” Modern Traveller, a Popular Description,
Geographical, Historical, and Topographical of the
Various Countries of the Globe- India. Vol. III” ; London
Edn.1828 published by James Duncan and has been
digitalised by Google. Relevant extracts thereof read as
follows:

“Its appearance, in 1770, is thus described by Tieffen
Thaler: “Avad with Ajudea by the learned Hindoos, is
a city of the highest Antiquity.” ……… (Ibid.312)
“The most remarkable place is that which is called
Sorgodoari, that is to say, the heavenly temple;
because they say, that Ram carried away from thence
to heaven all the inhabitants of the city. The deserted
town was repeopled and restored to its former
condition by Bikaramajit, the famous King of Oojein.
There was a temple here on the high bank of the river;
but Aurangzebe, ever attentive to the propagation of
faith of Mohammed, and holding the heathen in
abhorrence, caused it to be demolished, and replaced it
with a mosque with minarets, in order to abolish the
very memory of Hindoo superstition. Another mosque
1691

has been built by the Moors, to the East of this near
the Sorgodoari in an edifice erected by Nabalroy, a
former Hindoo governor. But a place more particularly
famous is that which is called Sitha Rassoce, a table of
Sitha (Seeta), wife of Ram; situated on an eminence to
the south of the city. The emperor Aurangzebe
demolished the fortress called Ramcote, and erected
on the site of Mohammedan temple with a triple dome.
According to others, it was erected by Baber. There
are to be seen fourteen columns of black stone, five
spans in height, occupied the site of the fortress.
Twelve of these columns now support the interior
arcades of the mosque: the two other form part of the
tomb of a certain Moor. They tell us that these
columnsms, are rather these remains of skillfully
wrought columns, were brought from the Isle of Lanca
or Selendip (Ceylon) by Hanuman, King of the
Monkeys. On the left is seen a square chest, raised
five inches from the ground covered with lime about 5
ells in length by not more than four in breadth. The
Hindoos call it Bedi. The cradle; and the reason is, that
there formerly stood here the house in which Beshan
(Vishnoo) was born in the form of Ram, and were
also, they say, is three brothers were born. Afterwards,
Aurangzebe or, according to others, Baber caused the
place to be destroyed, in order to deprive the heathen
of the opportunity of practising there their
superstitions. Nevertheless, they still pay superstitious
reverence to both these places; namely, to that on
which the Natal dwelling Ram stood, by going three
1692

times around it, prostrate on the earth. The two places
are surrounded with a low wall adorned with
battlements. Not far from this is a place where they
dig up grains of black rice changed into little stones,
which are affirmed to have been hidden under ground
ever since the time of Rama. On the 24th of the month
of Tshet (Choitru), a large concourse of people
celebrate here the birth-day of Ram, so famous
throughout India.”…… (Ibid. 313- 314)

6. Josef Tieffenthaler was born at Bozen in the Tyrol, on
27th August, 1710 and died at Lucknow on 5 July, 1785.
He entered the Society of Jesus 9 October, 1729, and went
in 1740 to the East Indian mission where he occupied
various positions, chiefly in the empire of the Great
Moghul. After the suppression of the Society he
remained in India, and on his death was buried in the
mission cemetery at Agra, where his tombstone still
stands. He was a fine scholar with an unusual talent for
languages; besides his native tongue he understood Latin,
Italian, Spanish, French, Hindustani, Arabic, Persian, and
Sanskrit. He was the first European who wrote an exact
description of Hindustan. A brief list of his works is the
best proof of his extraordinary power of work and his
varied scholarship. In geography, he wrote a “Descriptio
Indiae”, that is a circumstantial description of the twenty
two provinces of India, of its cities, fortresses, and the
most important smaller towns, together with an exact
statement of geographical positions, calculated by means
of a simple quadrant. He wrote a large book on the courses
of the Ganga. In history, he wrote many books. He wrote
1693

on the origin of the Hindus and their religion in Latin,
expeditions of Nadir Shah to India in German, the Deeds
of the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam in Persian, Incursions
of the Afghans and the Conquest of Delhi in French. He
wrote a book on contemporary history 1757-64. In
linguistics he prepared a Sanskrit-Parsee Lexicon, treatises
in Latin on the language of the Parsees, on the proper
pronunciation of Latin, etc.. In the area of religion, he
wrote ‘Brahmanism’ and works on Indian polytheism,
Indian asceticism, the religion of Parsee Islam and
relations of these religions to one another.In the field of
the natural sciences he wrote on astronomical observations
on the sunspots and zodiacal light, studies on the Hindu
astronomy, astrology and cosmology. In addition, he
wrote on the descriptions and observations of the flora and
fauna of India. Thus he was an intellectual giant and a
linguistic wizard and not mere a traveller or a merchant
who made casual remarks. His published works along
with biographical notes can be lucidly gleaned from
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) and ‘Christianty in India’
through Wikisource and Wikipedia’s website respectively.
His writings and contributions also find place in the books

-HUONDER, Deutsche Jesuitenmissionäre des 17. und

18. Jahrh. (Freiberg, 1899), 179; NOTI. Jos.Tieffentaller,
S. J., A Forgotten Geographer of India (Bombay, 1906);
HOSTEN, Jesuit Missionaries in Northern India (Calcutta,
1907).

1591. Sri P.N. Mishra argued that Father Joseph
Tieffenthaler himself was a linguist knowing Persian and Arabic
very well. Had the inscriptions two or three, as the case may be,
1694

whatever, fixed to the disputed building till the time he visited
Ayodhya including the disputed site, he could have himself read
the same and would have mentioned categorically that the
building in dispute was constructed by Babur. There could not
have been any occasion in such a case to mention that there was
a demolition by Aurangzeb and construction of mosque by him
and thereafter further that some says that it was done by Babur.
Sri Mishra suggested that Aurangzeb died in 1707 A.D. and had
ruled the most part of the country for about forty-eight years.
Whether he himself visited Ayodhya or not is irrelevant for the
reason that his Farman (command) for demolition of Hindu
temples is referred to in several history books including some of
the contemporary Muslim literature written by Muslim authors.
He argued that the existing Hindu temple was demolished by
Aurangzeb and it is during his regime, the disputed building was
constructed but at that time no inscription was installed thereat.
These inscriptions did not exist till Father Joseph Tieffenthaler
visited Ayodhya including the disputed site between 1740 to
1760-65. He pointed out that the inscriptions on the disputed
building came to be noticed for the first time by Dr. Francis
Buchanan who was appointed by the Governor General in
Council to undergo a survey of the Provinces ruled by the
Presidency of Bengal in 1807 AD visited Ayodhya in 1810 AD.
1592. Here it would of some importance to have an idea of
biography of Dr. Francis Buchanan. He was borne at Bardowie,
Callander Perthshire on 15th February, 1762. His family
originated in Spittal and claim the Chiefdom of the name of
Buchanan. He studied medicines at the University of Edinburgh.
He also studied Botany under John Hope in Edinburgh. After
several voyages on merchant navy ship to area, he served in the
1695

Bengal Medical Service from 1794 to 1815 AD. From 1803 to
1804 AD he was Surgeon to the Governor General of India,
Lord Wellesley in Calcutta. There he organised a Zoo, later
known as Calcutta Alipore Zoo. He worked on Indian Fish
Species entitled “An account of fishes found in the river Ganges
and its branches (1822)” which describes over 100 species not
formerly recognised scientifically. He also collected and
described very new plants in the region and collected a series of
Watercolours of Indian and Nepalese plants and animals,
probably painted by Indian artists, which they say that they are
now in the library of Linnean Society of London. After Tipu
Sultan’s defeat in 1799 AD he was asked to survey Southern
India resulting in a journey from Madras through the countries
of Mysore, Canara and Malabar (1807 AD). From 1807 to 1814
AD under the instructions of the Governor General and Council,
Bengal he made a survey of the areas within the jurisdiction of
the British East India Company, i.e., the provinces subject to the
Presidency of Bengal. He became Superintendent of the
Calcutta Botanical Garden in 1814 but due to his ill health
return to Britain in 1815 AD. In the same year he inherited his
mother’s estate and in consequence took her surname of
Hamilton, referring himself as “Francis Hamilton, formerly
Buchanan” or simply “Francis Hamilton”. However, he is
variously referred to by others as “Buchanan Hamilton”,
“Francis Hamilton Buchanan” or “Francis Buchanan Hamilton”.
He is considered to be Scottish Physician who made significant
contribution as a Geographer, Zoologist and Botanist while
living in India. He died on 15.06.1829.

1593. Apparently work of Dr. Buchanan could not be given
final shape by him. However, it appears that three journals were
1696

published by the government of Bihar and Orissa sometime in
1923 AD and onwards. One was published relating to Patna and
Gaya districts sometimes in 1923 AD under the editorship of
Mr. Jackson, another was published soon thereafter dealing with
the district of Sahabad under the care of Mr. Oldham and third
one was published narrating the survey of District Bhagalpur
conducted in the cold weather of 1810-11 AD edited by Mr.
Oldham.

1594. As already said, in 1807 AD under the orders of
Governor General and Council, East India Company Dr. Francis
Buchanan was directed to conduct survey of all the provinces
subject to the Presidency of Bengal. He was required to collect
information upon the general topography of each districts; the
condition of the inhabitants, their religious customs, the natural
productions of the country, fisheries, forests, mines and
quarries; the state of agriculture; the condition of landed
property and tenures; the progress made in the arts and
manufactures; the operations of commerce, and every particular
that can be recorded, as forming an element, in the prosperity or
depression of the people. The survey was pursued for seven
years and in 1816 AD the results were transmitted to England.
1595. Due to bad health of Dr. Buchanan the matter could
not proceed and it appears that the East India Company
thereafter took the help of Mr. Robert Montgomery Martin. The
Court of Directors permitted Mr. Martin to inspect the
manuscripts with a view to selection for publication. It was
sometimes in 1836 or 1838 Mr. Martin was required to study the
material collected by Dr. Buchanan, prepare a report so as to
place before the British public.

1596. This leads us to look into the biography of “Robert
1697

Montgomery Martin”. Born in Dublin of Protestant Irish Stock
in 1801 AD he spent 10 years in medical practice in Shillong,
East Africa and New South Wells and working as journalist in
Calcutta. There he helped, found and edit “The Bengal Herald”
before he return to Britten. He wrote on the colonies and
colonial policy. On return he become embroiled in domestic,
political and economic debate. In politics he initially supported
Repeal of the Act of Union between England and Ireland but
later switched to pro-unionism on religious and economic
grounds. In economics he was an opponent of popular
recardianism. He called for repeal of the 1819 AD currency
legislation; vigorously advocated protectionism for British
agricultural; concern himself with the principle of taxation. Due
to limited personal finances and an interest in policy matters he
sought Government patronage for official employment or
financial support.

1597. Buchanan made survey in the then territory of District
Behar, Shahabad, Bhagulpoor, Goruckpoor, Dinajpoor,
Puraniya, Ronggopoor and Assam. Mr. Martin found that the
time when the survey was made and when he was required to
inspect the manuscripts has made certain matters irrelevant. He,
therefore, in his wisdom confined his views to an examination
of the geography and physical aspect of the country; to its
traditional or recorded history, to the monuments or relics of
antiquity; physical and moral conditions of the people
amounting (according to the survey estimates) to 1.6 crore and
to the resources of the soil which they till; the manufactures
which carry on; and to the products and profits of agricultural
and commercial industry. In his views the survey depicted a
painful picture of human poverty, debasement and
1698

wretchedness. The report was submitted by Mr. Martin in
February’ 1838 which was first published in 1838. It has now
been reprinted in 1976 in India by Cosmo Publications, Delhi.
Martin’s report has been published under the title “Eastern
India” and is running in six volumes. It is a matter of
importance that Martin has not claimed to have visited North
West Provinces of India under East India Company. His entire
opinion is based only on the perusal of record sent by Buchanan.
1598. In the Chapter “District Gorukhpoor”, certain facts
about Ayodhya have been given. District Gorukhpoor (now
spelt as “Gorakhpur”) at that time situated to the left or north of
the river Ghoghra. According to survey map published in Vol-2
and printed between page 290 and 291, book titled as “Eastern
India” by Mortin, we find that on the western and southern side,
the boundary wall is depicted by the rivers Gharghara/Ghaghara
and Saryu; and on the northern and western side, the entire area
termed as Domain of Nawab Vazir of Oudh. About river
Ghaghra, description is on page 297 as under :

“Ghaghra. – The accounts of the great river, which
passes the ancient city of Ayodhya, that I have received,
differ not only very much from the maps of Danville and
Rennell, but disagree very much among themselves. The
confusion is increased to the most perplexing degree by
very different names being not only given to different parts
of the same river ; but even the very same portion by
different people and tribes is called by different names.

Finally the native maps, that I have received of the
country; through which the remote branches of this river
flow, are more imperfect than those of the country either to
the east or west, so that what I have to advance on the
1699

subject is liable to great doubt ; but as the information, if
true is curious, I think, that until more accurate
information is obtained, it should not be neglected.

At the city of Ayodhya this great river among the
Hindus is usually called Sarayu (Soorjew, Rennell), and
this name is in use in their sacred language; but by the
Muhammedans it is called Ghaghra, from the Sangskrita
word Gharghara. This name Mr. Gladwin (Ayeen Akbery)
wrote sometimes Gehgher, sometimes Goghar; and Major
Rennell writes it Gogra. The mountaineers from the east
side of this river assure me, that neither name is known on
the hills, and that the Sarayu celebrated in their legends is
formed by the junction of the Bheri river, which I take to be
the Soorjew of Major Rennell, with the Karanali Salasu, or
Sanbhadrik, which is no doubt the Gogra of that eminent
geographer, as the remarkable fountains emitting flame at
Dulubasandra are situated near its bank. The inhabitants
of the low country also in general agree with Major
Rennell, in calling the eastern branch the Sarayu, and the
western the Ghaghra, but the western branch which they
mean, is quite different from that on which Dulubasandra
is situated, and at any rate its principal branch on the
mountains is the Kalinadi. Both these authorities therefore,
that is, the mountaineers east from the river, and the people
of the low country agree, that a great river coming from the
west, and named the Ghaghra, unites with the Sarayu,
coming from the east, and that this latter among the Hindus
is considered as the principal river, and communicates its
name to the united stream while the Muhammedans adopt
the opposite opinion, and continue the name Ghaghra to
1700

the river at Ayodhya. A learned and intelligent Brahman,
however, Hariballabh of Kuman, from the mountains on
the west side of the river, and perfectly acquainted both
with the country and the legends, says, that the names
Sarayu and Ghaghra are applicable to the same river,
through the whole length of its course. That it rises by
two petty sources in the Pergunahs of Karuvirpoor and
Danapoor, on the hills north form Almorha ; but far
removed from the snowy peaks of Emodus. These two
torrents uniting at Bagheswar form the Sarayu, which
continues to run east, receiving the Panar a small channel
producing gold, and the Ramagangga of considerable size.
Some way east from the junction of the latter, the Sarayu
receives a river much larger than itself, which rises from
the perennial snows of Emodus, and is called the Kalinadi.
The united stream is the Sarayu, or Gharghara, and passes
south-westerly towards the plains, nor does my informant
know more of its course ; but, that it passes by Ayodhya to
join the Ganges at Dadri, he has learned from legend.

The account of the most intelligent boatmen that I
could procure at Ayodhya, is as follows. The boats which
load timber, can proceed no higher up the Ghaghra than
Mundiya ghat, which is in the Bareli district, about 18
coss, or 27 miles, road measure, from Pilibhit. The channel
is there very wide, but the stream is not large, and is not
above two cubits deep. The territory of Gorkha commences
about seven or eight coss from Mundiya, at a large forest
named Langsar, from which much timber comes. About
twelve coss below Mundiya the Ghaghra receives from the
mountains a branch called Neaula, down which much
1701

timber comes from the territory subject to Gorkha. Twelve
coss lower down, it receives the Kauriya, and immediately
below its mouth a third named the Geruya enters. Timber
is brought down both these rivers, and on the latter, in the
dominions of Gorkha, are two great forest, Amba and
Palamu. I suspect, that the Kauriyar and Geruya, and
perhaps even the Neaula are only different mouths of the
same river, which in the mountains is called Setigangga, or
the white river. The Hindus have given the preference to
the Sarayu, which is said to be the smallest, nor is the
larger branch any where fordable below the mouth of the
Bhakosa. The united channel begins to form the
boundary between this district and the territories of the
Nawab Vazir, just at the city of Ayodhya, where its
channel and stream seem fully larger than that of the
Ganges at Chunar. For about 18 miles below Ayodhya
its width is from one to three miles, as it surrounds two
very large islands, the property of the upper of which is
disputed by the landholders of the two governments; but
the lower is the undisputed property of the
Muhammedan prince. About ten miles above where the
Ghaghra comes to be the boundary, it sends off a channel
merely called the Sota, or branch, which runs parallel to
the main river for above six miles, forming for more than
four the boundary between the two governments, when it
joins the Teri river. I crossed this branch on the 11th of
December, where it was about a quarter of a mile wide,
and perhaps a fourth of the channel might be covered with
water knee deep, but nearly stagnant.

The Teri comes to the boundary of this district, about
1702

14 miles from where it receives the above-mentioned
branch of the Ghaghra, and, at the boundary receives from
the north-west a marshy channel called the Nawara jhil,
which forms the boundary for about four miles. The united
channel called Teri is inconsiderable, and winds much,
partly along the boundary, and partly on both sides of it,
until about four miles from where it receives the branch of
the Ghaghra called Sota. It there joins with a similar
branch of that river called Bhagala, which for some way
serves as the boundary. The united channel is called the
Teri.” (pages 297-300)
1599. Dealing with historical and topographical part of
District Gorakhpur, on page 325 and onwards it says :

“This district forms a considerable part of the
territory, which in ancient legend is called Maha Kosala.

……. This very extensive and fertile region has always been
considered as the proper patrimony of the family of the
sun, as it is called, which for a very long period governed
large portions of India and at times produced its
paramount lords.” (page 325)
1600. The study which was conducted by Martin, the source
of his information etc. in writing this chapter and in particular
what he has observed on pages 325 to 337 can not be well
understood unless we go through details of his entire discussion
on the matter and, therefore, it would be necessary to reproduce
the following from his book :

“The history of the Hindus has been thrown into such
confusion by an attempt to reconcile the actual
succession of their princes with a modern system of
astronomy, as most ably explained by Mr. Bentley in the
1703

eighth volume of the Asiatic Researches, that the utmost
difficulty attends all attempts to reconcile with any thing
like reason such ancient accounts as have been preserved
in the monstrous and modern legends called the Purans.

The difficulties attending this subject may be fully
appreciated by examining the different attempts of Sri
William Jones in the second volume, of Major Wilford in
the fifth volume, and of Mr. Bentley in the eighth volume of
the Asiatic Researches, although in the latter the real
source of the difficulties seems to have been fully
discovered. Still, however, many great difficulties exist,
which these authors have not fully explained, and of which
the two first do not seem to have been fully aware. Sir
William Jones seems, without examination, to have
adopted the account given of the Indian dynasties by
Radhakanta, in his Puranartha-prakasa, as the doctrine
generally received by the Hindus on the subject, and
alleges (Asiatic Researches, vol. 2, page 26), that it begins
with an absurdity so monstrous as to overthrow the
whole system, he then endeavours to turn the whole of
the early pedigree into an allegory, denying altogether
the existence of many princes, because their names
signify light, sky, sun, moon and so forth; although he
might have considered, that such names are sometimes
used for men among ourselves, and among the present
Hindus are very common. The grand objection to the
system of Radhakanta is, however, his having adopted as a
maxim, that there was always a supreme king of each of the
families of the sun and moon, so that India, according to
him, was governed like Lacedaemon, by two chiefs of two
1704

families possessing equal power ; and that each dynasty
contained exactly the same number of generations in the
respective periods, into which the history is divided. This is
a fable like many others, usually called opinions
universally received among the Hindus, which Mr. Bantley
(Asiatic Researches, vol. 8, page 244) so justly exposes.
But the receiving it, as an universally acknowledged
opinion, led Sir William Jones, from the imperfect lists
composed by Radhakanta, to doubt whether any such
personages as the Indian princes of the families of the sun
and moon existed (Asiatic Researches, vol. 2, page 131).
Had Sir Willam consulted the various genealogies
contained in the different Purans, he would have found,
that this opinion, by which he was staggered, rested
entirely on the imagination of Radhakanta, or of some
person from whom he borrowed it, and could not be
supported by the remains of history in the Purans. So far
as I can learn from Pandits, that I have employed to
extract the Hindu genealogies from their books, there
was only one paramount king admitted at a time, and in
general the succession to this power was totally irregular,
not only between the tow great families, but among the
branches of the same family, and, as I have mentioned in
the account of Shahabad, was as irregular as the
succession in Ireland during the government of the families
descended of Heber and Heremon. It would even appear,
that the succession to the supremacy was not strictly
confined to the two families of the sun and moon, as Pandu
and his successors were in fact descended of Vayasa ; and
also that many intervals occurred, in which no one king
1705

possessed paramount authority.

The table given by Major Wilfort is highly valuable ;
although, when he says, that it is extracted from the Vishnu
Puran, the Bhagawat, and other Puranas, without the least
alteration whatever, we are only to understand, that Major
Wilford made no alteration on the table, after it was
extracted by his assistants from the Hindu records ; for the
genealogies contained in the different books, to which he
alludes, differ so much from each other, that no one table
could be constructed from them without making numerous
alterations. This interesting table is however exceedingly
valuable in showing how nearly these genealogies, by
taking the human age at a just valuation may be reconciled
with the real eras pointed out by Mr. Bentley, on
astronomical data. It must however be evident, that both
systems are liable to some doubt. In the first place there is
a very great difficulty in establishing any calculation upon
the number of generations contained in the Hindu
genealogies, owing to the very great carelessness, with
which they have been constructed. Besides numerous
transpositions it would seem, that in many parts, what in
one Genealogy is detailed as a succession of several
generations, is given in another genealogy as a list of
brothers, so that by the former process the length of a
dynasty is monstrously enlarged. Again in some
genealogies a whole dynasty is represented by a single
name, which occasions the most absurd anachronisms to
be commonly received as canonical, by such as have
studied only a part of these genealogies. These
anachronisms are so distressing, that some learned persons
1706

have considered as quite vain the attempt of founding any
thing like a regular chronology on the Hindu genealogies. I
hope however, that this judgement is too harsh, and that a
careful perusal of all the remains may lead to something as
satisfactory as chronologies of equal antiquity usually
admit. So far as I can at present judge, for I have not yet
procured any thing like a full copy of the genealogies,
the eras, even as curtailed by Major Wilford and Mr.
Bentley, would require to be considerably reduced. I
consider it necessary to reduce the former from the
numerous interpolations of brothers and collaterals in
place of sons. The argument of Mr. Bentley goes only to
show the manner, in which some former systems of
chronology, detailed in the Graha Mangjari, have been
deformed by the present system of Varaha Mihira ; but
these ancient systems were also mere astronomical
fictions, and, although their application to history was
not attended with such monstrous difficulties, as the
present system, there is nothing in its nature to show,
that it is in any degree connected with what actually
happened. One great difficulty occurs relative to the
deluge, which Mr. Bentley and Major Wilford agree in
placing immediately before the government of the family of
the Sun in Kosala commenced, so that they consider the
government of Swayambhuwa and his successors, kings of
Vithora (Betoor Rennell) near Kanpoor, as in the
antediluvian age, while Swayambhuwa they call Adam,
and Vaiwaswata father of the first king of Kosala, they
call Noah. One of the legends, on which this opinion
rests has been given by Sir William Jones (Asiatic
1707

Researches, vol.2, page 117); but this, as explained by
the Pandits, whom I have consulted, is not reconcilable
with the opinion above mentioned; and these Brahmans
insist, that no general deluge (Pralaya) has taken place
since the time of Swayambhuwa. The mistake consists in
supposing, that Satyabrata (Satjavrata) and Vaiwaswata
are the same person, and that whatever is related of one,
may be attributed to the era of the other. But the Brahmans
say, that these two personages, although the same soul in
different transmigrations, lived at very remote periods,
Satyavrata having been saved in an ark by God, when the
deluge happened, while in his subsequent birth as
Vaiwaswata, after an interval of many ages, he became a
law-giver (Manu or Mamu), and founded the city of
Ayodhya. It must be farther observed, that although the
legend concerning the escape of Satyabrata or Satyarupa
has a strong resemblance to the history of Noah, he is far
from being considered by the Hindus as being like Noah
the second father of the human race ; but he is said to have
died without children, and was born again in the family of
the Sun ; while Swayambhuwa was created to people the
world after the deluge ; and from him were descended the
first kings of India, who governed at Vithora, and who were
perhaps natives, although it is possible, that they may
have been Assyrians. In place therefore of allowing the
family of the Sun to have governed from the time of the
deluge, and that the Treta yug or silver age extended to
that event, we must, I imagine, allow the golden age or
Satya yug, and the government of the descendants of
Swayambhuwa to be subsequent to that period, and of
1708

course must bring the time, when the kingdom of Kosala
was founded, much latter than Major Wilford and Mr.
Bentley do. Could we depend on the accuracy of the
numbers, as Sir William Jones observes, there is
circumstance mentioned by Abul Fazil, that could throw
much light on this subject. It would appear that, the
Brahmans, whom that person consulted, had not always
applied to the history of their princes the astronomical
fictions of Varaha Mihira, and they placed the birth of
Budha, I presume the grandson of Atri, and son in law
of Vaiwaswata first king of Ayodhya, in the year 1366
before the birth of Christ (Asiatic Researches vol.

2.p.125). This entirely coincides with the opinion I have
above stated, and places the commencement of the
historical silver age, commencing with Budha, in the
1366th year before Christ, in place of the 2204th as given
by Mr. Bentley from the astronomical systems of the Graha
Mungjari. Such a reduction on the era of the silver age,
and foundation of the kingdom of Kosala I am far from
thinking absolutely necessary; but on the whole I am
inclined to believe, that it approaches near the truth than
the systems of Major Wilford or Mr. Bentley, although I
must confess, as I have mentioned, that the coincidence of
the two systems, founded on principles totally different,
affords a strong presumption in favour of the result.

In Hindu legend the appearance of certain persons
named Brahmadikas created by God, and commonly
called the progenitors of every living thing, forms a
remarkable era, but the accounts concerning these
personages are totally dissonant, as may be seen in the
1709

account of Major Wilford (Asiatic Researches, vol. 5, page

246). One authority makes the three sons of Swayambhuwa
to have been the Brahmadikas, placing them thus at the
commencement of the golden, and not at the beginning of
the silver age; and I have already stated my opinion, that
these were the aboriginal inhabitants or earliest
conquerors of India, but other authority give another
class totally different, and always containing Marichi, Atri,
Anggirasa, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kritu, and Vasishtha, while
others add Daksha, Bhrigu and Narada. The descendants
of these personages governed India both in spirituals and
temporals from the commencement of the silver age until
about the time when the Greeks made their appearance,
and numerous chiefs still claim to be of their family. They
are all called Brahmans, either as being created by the
God of that name, or perhaps more probably as being
persons more intelligent than those who preceded them; far
from being all of the sacred order, the greater part of their
descendants were princes, statesmen and soldiers, and one
in particular is stated to have been a merchant (Vaisya).

We have seen that Swayambhuwa, the founder of the
kingdom of Vithora, by the whole of what is called the
golden age (Satya yug), preceded Vaiwaswata, the founder
of the kingdom of Kosala, and the latter was the great
grandson of Marichi, while Budha, who founded the
adjacent kingdom of Kuru, and reigned at Pratisthan,
opposite to Prayag, about the same time with Vaiwaswata,
whose daughter he married, was the grandson of Atri. I
look upon these Brahmadikas, therefore, as the leaders
of a colony, which at the end of the golden age, settled in
1710

India, and assumed the name of Brahmans , as being
farther advanced in the arts than the descendants of
Swaymbhuwa, its more early princes. I look upon it also
as probable, that these personages came from western
Asia, introducing with them the Sangskrita language,
generally admitted to be radically the same with the
Persian dialect, while the languages spoken among all
the rude tribes that inhabit the fastnesses of India, and
which are probably remains of its ancient tongue, have
no sort of analogy to the languages of the west. In the
history of Kasmira, preserved by Abul Fazil, Kasyap, who
was the son of Marichi, is said to have introduced the
Brahmans (that is, a colony of civilized men) into that
country, and the traditions of Behar state, that he there
founded a city, of which I was shown some of the remains.
These no doubt were of much later date than the time of
Kasyap, although he may have been the founder of the city
to which they once belonged. One of the sons of Kasyap,
named Viwaswa, is supposed to be now the deity
presiding over the sun, owing probably to his having
introduced from Persia the worship of that luminary,
and, from flattery, his descendants were usually called
the family of the sun (Suryabangsa). His son
Vaiwaswata, who, in a former transmigration, had been
Satyabrata (perhaps Noah), founded the kingdom of
Kosala, long one of the most powerful in India, and built
the city of Kosalapoori, or Ayodhya.

If I am right in supposing that Budha was born about
1366 years before Christ, he being the son-in-laws of
Vaiwaswata, it is probable that this prince may have been
1711

born about the year 1399, and we may allow him to have
been 33 years old when he founded Ayodhya, and the
kingdom of Kosala. In the genealogies may be found
several different lists of his successors, who are commonly
supposed by Pandits to have succeeded each other from
father to son, by right of primogeniture, nor did one prince
fail to leave his kingdom to his eldest son for many
generations (Asiatic Researches, vol. 2, p. 130). This,
however, seems to be a mere supposition taken for granted,
because in some of the genealogies the names follow each
other without any remark, for the direct line failed in
Ambarisha, and went to the descendants of his brother;
and Bharata usurped the government for 14 years from his
elder brother Rama. The genealogies differ so much in the
names, number of persons, and order of succession, that
without a very careful examination of all that is to be found
concerning each person, little reliance can be placed on
the particulars, although it is evident, that these
genealogies have been taken from some common source;
and I have no doubt, that a careful examination would
enable the intelligent antiquary to remove many difficulties
and contradictions, that now appear.

Far from the princes of Ayodhya having enjoyed an
uninterrupted succession of supreme power for numerous
ages, and from father to son, very few of them would
appear to have been Chhatradharis, or lords paramount of
India; and there is even reason to suspect, that the family
at different periods was subject to great disasters, and
repeatedly lost the dominion of even Kosala. The learned
of Ayodhya informed the Pandit of the Mission, that
1712

their city had been three times destroyed, and that on
these occasions all the people were carried to heaven with
their Rajas Harischandra, Ambarisha, and Rama. The
successors of these princes again collected people to
occupy the city. The Pandits, whom I have employed,
have not been able to trace the passages in which the
two first catastrophes are mentioned; but the third is
known to every one. Several traditions, however, that I
have heard, confirm the opinion of Harischandra having
been expelled from Ayodhya, as he is said to have removed
the seat of government to Ellora, while his son Rohitaswa
lived at Rautas, and his grandson founded Champa, at
Bhagulpoor in Bengal. That Ambarisha also met with some
misfortune is probable; as in the Sri Bhagwat, he is not
succeeded by his son, and the line is carried on by
Sindhudwipa, his brother, while in the Bangsalata, his
immediate successor is Ritaparna, who, according to the
Sri Bhagwat was the grandson of Sindhudwipa, and until
the time of Ritaparna it is probable that the family did
not recover from its misfortune. The severe treatment of
his wife Sita, is said to have induced that princes to
excite her sons to rebel against their father Rama, and
this, more probably than his piety, sent him and his
adherents to heaven. Ayodhya, however, was rebuilt by
the son Kusha, who left a numerous offspring, that held the
until the reign of Vrihadbala. From Vaiwaswata to Rama
inclusive, the Sri Bhagwat reckons 55 princes, the
Mahabharat reckons 69, and the Bangsalata 78; but the
Ramayana of Valmika reckons only 36. This being it is
supposed by far the most ancient account, is probably the
1713

most correct, and we may suppose it to be free from the
interpolations of collateral successions and dynasties
introduced by later writers, and to be the actual succession
of the kings of Ayodhya; unfortunately Valmiki gives no
list of Rama’s successors and the Purans, as usual, are
filled with numerous discordance. Vrihadbala, killed by
Abhimanaya in the great war at the commencement of the
iron age, was one of the most remarkable successors of
Rama. According to the Sri Bhagwat, he was the 27th
descent from Rama. In the Mahabharat he is the 33rd, and
in the Bangsalata he is the 25th. As, owing to similar causes
these numbers are probably as much increased as the
predecessors of Rama, the number of princes, taking the
scale of the Sri Bhagwat reduced by that of Valmiki as a
guide, from Rama to Vrihadbala may have been 17, or
from the commencement of the silver to the commencement
of the iron age, 53 princes, which, they were also
generations of 3 to a century, would give a duration of
1766 years. There is no impossibility in admitting such a
duration; but I think, as I have said, that in all
probability it must be reduced. Major Wilford (table in 5th
Vol. of Asiatic Researches ) has found in the Purans. 59
princes from the time of Rama to that of Chandragupta,
contemporary nearly with Alexander. Reducing these by
the scale of Rama’s predecessors, we shall have 31
princes, which added to Rama and his predecessors, will
give in all 67 princess, if these commenced their
government 1366 years before Christ and ended it 300
years before this event, there will be on an average about
15 ½ years for each prince which can only be understood
1714

of reigns, and not of generations. On these grounds,
Vaiwaswata being placed in the year before Christ, 1366,
Rama will be placed in 775, and Vrihadbala, or the
commencement of the historical iron age in the year

512. But, if the antiquary prefers with Major Wilford to
consider these 67 as generations, we must double the
length of each period; that is, we must say, that Ayodhya
was founded 2732 years before Christ, that Rama
flourished 1550 years before that event, and that
Vrihadbala was killed in the 1024.

It must be observed, that in the Purans, little
amplification seems to have been made in the family of the
moon, as from Budha, one generation after Vaiwaswata to
Krishna, contemporary with Vrihadbala, the Sri Bhagwat
reckons 55 persons, a difference of only two persons from
that which is given by the correction that is required in the
list of the family of the sun, by comparing Valmiki with the
Sri Bhagwat; and this coincidence, I consider as in a great
measure proving, that the nature of the correction which I
have adopted is not subject to material error, so far as
relates to the number of successions; but it decides nothing
as to the points of whether we are to consider these as
reigns or as generations.

The people of Ayodhya imagine, that after the
death of Vrihadbala, their city was deserted, and
continued so until the time of Vikrama of Ujjain, who
came in search of the holy city, erected a fort called
Ramgar, cut down the forests by which the ruins were
covered, and erected 360 temples on the places sanctified
by the extraordinary actions of Rama, of his wife Sita, of
1715

his brother Lakshman, and of his General Mahavira. The
only foundation probably for such a tradition is, that
Vikrama may have erected some temples, and that in the
Mahabharata the genealogy of the family it continued no
lower than the time of Vrihadbala, as being foreign to the
subject of the book; but in the Sri Bhagwat Vrihadbala is
succeeded by 29 princes, and in the Bangsalata by 24.
These, taken according to the scales of Ramas
predecessors in Valmiki and the Sri Bhagwat, would give
18 princes, and this will give us 279, or 558 years,
according as we call these successions reigns or
generations, brining the existence of the family down to the
time nearly of Alexander; but none of the latter princes
rose to considerable power, and they were vassals of the
Kings of Magadha. Their existence, however, throws a
great doubt on the whole story concerning Vikrama.

This Vikrama is usually suppose to have been the
personage from which the era called Sambat is derived,
and, according to the reckoning used in Kosala, this era
commences 57 years before the birth of Christ, so that
the city had been then deserted about 280 years. How the
places remarkable for the actions of the God could be
traced after such a long interval, and amidst the forest,
seems rather doubtful; and the doubt will be increased,
if it supposed that they latter Vikarama, the son in law of
the Emperor Bhoja, was the person who constructed the
temples at Ayodhya. This I am inclined to think was
probably the case, for although Rama was probably
worshipped before the time of elder Vikrama, yet his
worship as that peculiarly distinguishing a sect of
1716

begots, seems to have been first established by
Ramanuja about the time of the latter Vikrama, who
may from thence be supposed peculiarly eager to
discover the traces of the deity of his own sect.
Unfortunately if these temples ever existed, not the smallest
trace of them remains to enable us to judge of the period
when they were built; and the destruction is very
generally attributed by the Hindus to the furious zeal of
Aurangzebe, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of
the temples in Benares and Mathura. What may have
been the case in the two latter, I shall not now take upon
myself to say, but with respect to Ayodhya the tradition
seems very ill founded. The begot by whom the temples
were destroyed is said to have erected mosques on the
situations of the most remarkable temples; but the
mosque at Ayodhya, which by far the most entire, and
which has every appearance of being the most modern,
is ascertained by an inscription on its walls (of which a
copy is given) to have been built by Babur, five
generations before Aurangzebe. This renders the whole
story of Vikrama exceedingly doubtful, specially as what
are said to be the ruins of his fort, do not in any essential
degree differ from those said to have belong to the ancient
city, that is consist entirely of irregular heaps of broken
bricks, covered with soil, and remarkably productive of
tobacco; and, from its name, Ramgar, I am inclined to
suppose that is was a part of the building actually
erected by Rama.

Although I did not fail to visit the place, and
whatever the Hindus reckon remarkable, I did not choose
1717

to take any measurements, so as to draw with any
accuracy of plan of the space which the ruins occupy, as
the doing so might have given offence to government of
the Nawab Vazir, in whose territory, separated from this
district only by the river Sarayu, they are situated.

I may in a general manner observe, that the heaps of
bricks, although much seems to have been carried away by
the river, extend a great way, that is, more than a mile in
length, and more than half a mile in width; and that
although vast quantities of materials have been removed
to built the Muhammedan Ayodhya or Fyzabad, yet the
ruins in many parts retain a very considerable elevation;
nor is there any reason to doubt, that the structure to
which they belong, has been very great; when we
consider, that it has been ruined for above 2000 years.
None of the Hindu buildings at present existing are in the
least remarkable either for size or architecture, and they
are all not only evidently, but avowedly, quite modern, that
is, they have been all erected since the reign of
Aurangzebe, or most of them even within the memory of
man. Although they are built on what I have no doubt
are the ruins of the palace that was occupied by the
princes of the family of the sun, their being built on the
spots, where the events which they are intended to
celebrate, actually happened, would have been extremely
doubtful, even had the elder Vikrama built temples on
the various places which had been destroyed by
Aurangzebe, so that the spots selected by Vikrama might
be known by tradition; but the whole of that story being
liable to strong suspicion, we may consider the present
1718

appropriation of names to different places as no better
founded than the miracles, with several of them are said to
commemorate.

It is said that in digging for bricks many images
have been discover, but the few which I was able to trace
were too much broken to ascertain what they were meant to
represent, except one at the convent (Akhara) of Guptar,
where Lakshman supposed to have disappeared. This
represents a man and women carved on one stone. The
latter carries somewhat on her head, and neither has
any resemblance to what I have before seen. The only
thing except these two figures and the bricks, that could
with probability be traced to the ancient city, are some
pillars in the mosques built by Babur. These are of black
stone, and of an order which I have seen nowhere else,
and which will be understood from the accompanying
drawing. That they have been taken from a Hindu
building, is evident, from the traces of images being
observable on some of their bases; although the images
have been cut off to satisfy the conscience of the begot.
It is possible that these pillars have belonged to a temple
built by Vikrama; but I think the existence of such temples
doubtful; and, if they did not exist, it is probable that the
pillars were taken from the ruins of the palace. They are
only 6 feet high. There is a Shiva Lingga called
Nageshwar, which is called on by all the pilgrims to
witness their faith, when they have performed the usual
ceremonies; and this supposed to be the oldest image of the
place. As Lakshman the brother of Rama is supposed to
have founded one of the orders of Yogis, there is a
1719

probability that the great God was a principal object of
worship at the court of his brother, and this image may
actually have then existed, as from its form, if kept from the
weather, it may have lasted from the first origin of
things; but it leads to no conclusions, and may be of very
modern date. Could we believe what is said of the chief
objects of worship now at the place, they would be of
singular curiosity. They are images said to the present
Rama, Lakshman, and Sita, made by the first personage,
and thrown by him into the Sarayu, when he was about to
proceed on an expedition to the Indus. In modern times
they were divulged to a fortunate merchant by the
ordinary course of dreaming. He drew them from the
river, and built temple for them, which was destroyed by
Aurangzebe, but the images were allowed to escape, and
Ahilya, the widow of Holkar, lately built for them a
small temple, which is only opened at peculiar times,
and only to the faithful. Sitting aside the dream, the
escape of the images from Aurangzebe, as they are made of
gold, renders the story very problematical. They are about
a span high, and were so covered with flowers, and shown
in so dark a place, that my people who went to worship
could form no opinion either as to their shape or
materials.

I procured a good many old copper coins, and many
were said to be of the Hindu Kings; but on examination,
except two, all appear to contain Arabic inscriptions, but in
very old characters, and I had similar ones at Agra. One
said to have been found in the Sarayu retains a defaced
figure in the human form; and another the figure of a
1720

lion. These are probably Hindu coins, but they contain
no legend, nor anything to indicate that they belonged to
princes of the family of the sun.

The person who finally expelled the family of the sun
from Ayodhya, is not stated by tradition, nor, so far as I
can learn, in legend, but the learned of this district have
heard of the dominion of the Cheros, although this impure
tribe has here left no monuments of its power, the place
being far removed from the seat of government.” (pages
325-337)
1601. What is apparent from the above report of Martin is
that he was the first person to tell us about inscriptions on the
wall of the disputed building to say that it was built by Babar.
We have also noticed that Buchanan must have visited the area
between 1807 to 1814, i.e. after about 280 years (if the disputed
building was constructed by Babar in 1528 AD). Martin
however, has observed that the building appears to be most
modern. He also found that locally the people said that after
destructing a temple, the Mosque was constructed by
Aurangzeb. It is difficult to believe that till 1807 there was no
Hindu person capable of reading and writing Persian or Arabic,
as the case may be, to find out what was written in the said
inscriptions in the Mosque and to tell others that the disputed
building was actually constructed by Babar. Buchanan also does
not appear to have actually visited the disputed building in order
to collect the details as is evident from the next para that he did
not do so (collect measurement) for the reason that it might have
offended the Government of Nawab Vazir. We may notice
hereat that upto 1814 and even thereafter, the entire area of
Avadh was within the sovereignty of Nawab Vazir of Lucknow
1721

though for some part of defence etc. Nawab Vazir has entered
into a treaty with East India Company in 1801 but only the area
which was in the territory of Banaras was within the authority of
East India Company and rest of the part, particularly Avadh,
was not within the reigning territory of East India Company.
The text of the alleged inscriptions, the number of inscriptions
etc. are not mentioned in the report. The language, however,
shows that there was only one inscription which could be seen
by Buchanan. The text of the inscription, as existed when
Buchanan visited Ayodhya between 1807 to 1814, has not been
placed before us in an authentic manner though plaintiffs (Suit-

5) has sought to rely on a text of the inscription which he claims
to have collected from British Museum but the same having not
been proved in accordance with Evidence Act, we find it
difficult to place any reliance thereon. Even if we place reliance
thereon, nothing helps us to form an opinion that the building in
dispute was actually constructed in 1528 by Mir Baqi under the
command of Babar.

1602. The affidavit dated 17th December, 1999 was filed by
Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwala plaintiff no.3 (Suit-5) where in para
3, 4 and 5 he said:

“3. That the English documents written in hand script
prevalent in the past and Persian/Arabic and Nustalik
annexures thereto were obtained by Vishwa Hindu
Parishad, New Delhi through the Vishwa Hindu Parishad
(U.K.) during the course of negotiations for resolving the
tangle relating to the Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, by mutual
dialogue through the mediation of the then Prime Minister
of India in the year 1992, from the British Library where
the original manuscript of the document is lodged. The
1722

original leter from the General Secretary of the VHP U.K.
Dated 23 Sept. 1992 to the VHP New Delhi is also being
filed with this affidavit.

4. That the documents obtained from the British Library
U.K. are not available anywhere else and appear to be
unpublished. The originals cannot be moved from the
Library and cannot therefore be produced. Their copies
supplied by the Library are thus admissible in evidence.

5. That the documents in English are in old style hand
written script of the early nineteenth century, with which I
am well acquainted. I have deciphered them and made a
typescript of the same, which is also being filed. I say that
the type script of the handwritten documents in English is a
correct copy of the same.”

1603. The letter dated 23rd September, 1992 referred to in
para 3 of the aforesaid affidavit appears to have been sent by
one Sri Kishor Ruparelia- Gen. Sec. 48 Wharfedale Gardens,
Thornton Heath, Surrey UK addressed to Sri Jashwant Rai
Gupta, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Sankat Mochan Ashram, New
Delhi. The relevant extract thereof is as under:

“I am sending herewith photocopies, obtained from the
British Library, of the following documents kept under Ref
MSS. EUR. E73 and filed as records by Dr Buchanan

1. Pages 1 & 2, written by Dr. Buchanan, heading:

Translation Gorakhpur Inscript No. 1

2. Pages 3 & 4, a letter written by Dr Buchanan

3. Page 5, a Sanskrit inscription – this does not seem to
relate to Ayodhya, but I am sending this because the page
is part of continuation

4. Page 6, heading: Inscription on a mosque at
1723

Ayodhya Gorakhpur No.1.

5. Page 7, this page seems to contain Persian and
Arabic writing but no heading or description i.e. om
English written on the page.

1604. This letter is paper No.189C2/3. Paper No.189C2/4-5
appears to be translation of some Persian or Arabic words by
somebody at Gorakhpur. In respect to the period Paper
no.189C2/4-5 the following extract refers to AH935.

“N.B. The words ‫ بود خیر باقی‬signifying “There is lasting
charity” or “good works are lasting” also mean “the
charity of Baqee” and form an anagram of the year of the
erection viz : 935.”

1605. Thereafter paper no.189C2/8-9 contains the Persian or
Arabic text to which we are not clear as to whether it is in
respect to the inscriptions said to be fixed on the building in
dispute or else.

(Caligraphy page-1)
‫صاحب قران میرتیمور ابن میران شاہ ایں سلطان محمد شاہ ابن سلطان ابو‬
‫سعید شاہ ابن عمرشیخ شاہ ابن بججابر بادشججاہ ابججن ہمججایون بادشججاہ ابججن اکججبر‬
‫بادشاہ ابن جہانگیربادشاہ ابن شاہ جہان بادشاہ ابن ابو المظفججر محججی الججدین‬
‫عالم کبر بادشاہ غازی‬
(Translation not available)
‫بسم ال الرحمن الرحیم‬
‫سوُله‬
ُ ‫عْبُده َوَر‬
َ ‫حّمًد ا‬
َ ‫ن ُم‬
ّ ‫شَهُد َا‬
ْ ‫ل َو َا‬
ّ ‫لا‬
ّ ‫ل ِالَه ِا‬
ّ ‫ن‬
ْ ‫شَهُد ا‬
ْ‫ا‬
(‫)ربنل اللہ ہو بخط عبد ضءیف محمد فاتح‬
(Transliteration)
Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim
Ašhadu an la ilaha ill lallah, wa ašhadu anna
Muhammadun Aabduhu wa rasuluhu.

(Rab-un-Allahu Bakkhittin Abdezaif Mohammad Fateh)
(English Translation)
‫‪1724‬‬

‫‪In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, and the Most‬‬
‫‪Merciful.‬‬
‫‪I bear witness that there is no God except Allah, and I bear‬‬
‫‪witness that Muhammad is Allah’s devotee and His‬‬
‫)‪Messenger (Prophet‬‬

‫)‪(Rab-un-Allahu Bakkhittin Abdezaif Mohammad Fateh‬‬
‫)‪(Name of the Calligrapher‬‬
‫ازقدیمان و وافغان ایں احوال چنان بدریافت رسید پیشترازیںنہ وبادشاہی بود‬
‫کہ اورسیف خان عالی مسند میکقندوزیراوردختری بود کہ باموسججی عاشججقان‬
‫نامزدکردہ بونجد بعجد ازچنجدی وزیراردارالنفججا یجدارلبقا رحلجت کجرد بادشجاہ‬
‫برای ضبط کروں کالبی خانہ وزیرطلقی و پہرہ فرستکہ بموبججوقت موسججی‬
‫عاشقان را خیال کذشت را دنیا بھست فرموند کہ پر چہ نقججد و جنججس و دخججانہ‬
‫است او را ہمہ کسججان غججار تکججردہ ببرنججدبفرمودہ ہمیجں مردمججان کردنججد بعججد‬
‫ازغارت برون دریافت نمودند کہ حال چیزی با قسبت یججانہ ملزمججان عججرض‬
‫کرند کہ ازقسم غلہ چیزی باقیست فرمودند کہ اورا ہم بغارت برندہیں فرمودند‬
‫را لحال کدام خیر با قیست مردمان عرض نمودند یک پرچہ بلس یعنی ٹاہٹہ‬
‫ا یزان اسبان و بہ میخوردند با قیست فرمودنججد کجہ اوبکججار مججا خوا ہد انججدلیس‬
‫اورا بیادر دہ اردرمیان دریں در کال وا ختہ دردیشججی اختیججا کردنججد نیداراسجہ‬
‫لوہای بودند پوشیدہ اوازہ در دیشے و معجزہ را نشججین درخججدمت خضججرت‬
‫حاضرشججدند حضججرت حججال بججار را پریشججان ملحظججہ ۔۔۔۔۔خججبری شججیرنی‬
‫خوارنیں فرمدند کہ بودبادشاہ خواہی شند بججابر بججر خواشججتہ تسججلیم کعبجہ روانجہ‬
‫نشدند باد حضرت فرمودند کہ من و را بجا باعث ہندواں کہ نافوس ہے نوارند‬
‫جرایم وجبکہ بوبابر شاہ فتوی و را یجا نسججندی بنججاخواہی کججر و بعججد ازخنججد‬
‫فربابر بر تخت شاہی رسید بابر نام شاہ تندید و فرمودہ حضرت رفراموش‬
‫کعند موسی عاشقان ازرا شخص را فرسا کہ بابر و ہانندبہ الججوقت حکججم بججابر‬
‫شاہ بر سوبہ دار رشید و درا الوقت میر نقااللہ خان صوبہ بود ند او نشان ای جں‬
‫مسجد را بنا نمودند‬
‫)‪(Translation not available‬‬
‫)‪(Calligraphy page-2‬‬
‫بفرمودہ شاہ بابر کہ عدلش‬
‫بنایست تأ کاخ گردوں ُملقی‬
1725

‫بنا کرد ایں ُمہبط ُقدسیاں‬
‫امیر سعادت نشان میر باقی‬
‫بود خیر باقی سال بنایش‬
‫عیاں شد کہ گفتم بود خیر باقی‬
(Translation not available)
ّ ‫سُول ا‬
‫ل‬ ُ ‫حّمٌد َر‬
َ ‫ل ُم‬
ّ ‫لا‬
ّ ‫ل ِاَلَه ِا‬
‫بسم ال الرحمن الرحیم‬
٢- ‫صَمُد‬ ّ ‫ل ال‬ُّ ‫ ا‬-١- ‫حٌد‬ َ ‫ل َأ‬
ُّ ‫ل ُهَو ا‬
ْ ‫ُق‬
٤- ‫حٌد‬
َ ‫ َوَلْم َیُكن ّلُه ُكُفًوا َأ‬-٣- ‫َلْم َیِلْد َوَلْم ُیوَلْد‬
Transliteration
La ilaha illa-llah, Muhammadu-rasulu-llah
Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim
Qul huwa Allahu ahad (1)
Allahus-samad (2)
Lam yalid walam yulad (3)
Walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad (4)
( Englidh Translation)
There is no God except the Allah, Muhammad is the devotee
and Prophet of Allah.

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Say: He is God, the One and Only; (1)
God, the Eternal, Absolute; (2)
He does not beget, nor is He begotten; (3)
And there is none comparable to Him. (4)
(Surah 112: Al-Ikhlas)

1606. The English translation (interpretation) of the aforesaid
verses (though incomplete) has been given in paper no.
189C2/10-11, which has also been checked by the Court since
one of us fortunately is conversant in Persian and Urdu. It reads
as under:

“By order of King Babur whose Justice is a building
reaching to the mansions of heaven, this alighting place of
the angels was erected by Meer Baqee a nobleman
1726

impressed with the seal of happiness.

There is lasting charity in the year of its construction
what declares is manifest “that good works are lasting”

N.B. The words ‫( بود خیر بباقی‬Bavad Khair Baqee)
signifying “There is lasting charity” or “good works are
lasting” also mean “the charity of Baqee” and form an
anagram of the year of the erection viz : 935.

From the Tughra
There is no God but God, and Moohammad is the
Prophet of God –

Say, O’Moohammad, that God is one, that God is
holy, unbegetting and unbegotten, and that he hath no
equal.

(Rab-un-Allahu Bakkhittin Abdezaif Mohammad Fateh)
(Name of the Calligrapher)
2d
Nustalick
The victorious lord, Moohey ood Deen, Aulumgir,
Badshah, the destroyer of Infidels; the son of Shah
Juhan; the son of Juhangeer Shah; the son of Ukbar
Shah; the son of Humayoon Shah; the son of Babur
Shah; the son of OOmar Sheikh Shah; the son of
Soolatan Uboo Saeed; the son of Sooltan Moohummad
Shah; the son of Meeran Shah; the son of the Shahib i
Qiran Meer Tymoor-

N.B. Sahib i qiran is applied to a Prince who has
reigned above 30 years.

From the Tughra
In the name of God, most merciful. I testify that there
is no God but God- He is one, and without equal- I also
testify that Moohummad is his Servant and Prophet.

1727

This was engraced/ upon the propitious date of this
noble erection, by this weak slave Moohummud Funa Ullah

– N.B. The words in the parenthisis are not on the Insc., but
understood.

Nustalick writing
We are informed by the ancients who were acquainted
with the these facts that there was formerly a Prince named
Tugli Khan Oimyeed throne. His Wuzeer had a daughter
betrothed to Moosa Ashiquan. (Lit. The comforter of
Lovers). After some time the Wuzeer departed from this
dwelling of mortality to the abode of Eternity. —

The king having sent written orders for the purpose of
sezing the property in the Wuzeer’s house; at that moment
Moosa Ashiqan was struck with the reflection that “This
World is nothing”. He gave orders that all the people should
plunder and carry off whatever money and effects were in
his house’ – The people did as he directed. As soon as the
plundering was over, he enquired whether anything
remained. The attendants told him that there remained some
grain. He directed them to carry off that also. After this he
again made enquiry, if anything was yet left. The servants
replied that there was only a piece of coarse canvas or Taut,
upon which the horses were wont to eat their gram”. “That”
said he “will be of use to me”. In short having taken and
torn althrough the middle and threw it over his shoulders
(or neck) he became a Durwish. —

Babur one of the Princes, hearing the report of his
becoming a Durwish and the other circumstances, privately
presented himself before his Highness. Beholding the
wretched condition of Babur, he gave him some sweetmeats
to eat and (addressing him) “Thou”, said his Highness”
shalt be King “Babur arose and having made his Salam,
1728

was departing. His Highness again said “I am annoyed by
the Hindoos who are constantly ringing their Bells- When
thou becomest King thou shalt build a Musjid at this place.

Sometime afterwards Babur mounting the royal
throne was created King; but forgot His Highness’s
directions. Moosa Ashiqan sending a person from himself
reminded him of it. Upon this the Soobadar received His
Majoxty’s commands–Meer Buqaoola Khan then Soobedar,
and he erected this Massjid.”

1607. Sri Ravi Shankar, Senior Advocate, Sri P.N.Mishra,
Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Sri R.L.Verma, Advocates, learned
counsels for Hindu parties sought to refer to the above
documents to show that this is the extract of the report and
documents of Dr. Buchanan himself and makes it very clear that
the building in dispute was constructed much later what is being
claimed as it contains the name of Emperor Alamgir
(Aurangzab) also. As we have already said, the above
documents were not proved by the concerned party and a
properly obtained document from British Library, Oriental
and India Office Collections has also not been produced. It is
therefore difficult for us to place any reliance on the said
documents.

1608. The worship of places by Hindus, however, has been
noticed in the History, Antiquities, Topography And Statistics
of Eastern India (supra) published in 1838. In Vol. I at page
195, Martin has observed:

“It must be observed, that the Hindus very often worship
(Puja) without any temple or images. … There are places,
however, that are reckoned more holy than the house…”

1609. The long passage we have quoted from several pages
of Martin’s Eastern India, Vol. II above has some reason. We
1729

have no bias or prejudice against the agents of East India
Company or the then British Government, but the manner in
which they have dealt with the Indian ancient scriptures and
have written down about its culture, religion, society etc. needs
some deeper consideration. In fact, the history of India, which is
substantially embodied in ancient religious scriptures, has been
initially attempted to be penned down by the western writers
after advent of East India Company. In 18th and 19th century a
mass of work has been undertaken by them which has aroused
anxiety and has drawn attention of the people abroad to know
more about India. Before making further comments, one thing
which is a matter of appreciation, we cannot forget is that
whatever was written by western so called intelligentsia mainly
in the two centuries as said above, at least has given a
foundation or a point of commencement to others, whether in
India or outside, to go for further research in the matter and
endeavour to place the correct history of this sub-continent
before the world at large.

1610. The ancient scriptures in India was basically written in
Sanskrit irrespective of the script. It was not a language of the
common man. Therefore, virtually substantial section of the
sub-continent comprising Hindustan at that time was in dark
about the contents, meaning and the message derivable from
those scriptures. It was confined to a particular class, i.e.,
Brahmans and there also a very few were learned having some
deeper knowledge of those scriptures, otherwise general class
was more satisfied with the superficial working knowledge
sufficient for their day to day earning and survival.
1611. The East India Company after its initial few steps
towards India, brought such a huge revenue to England that the
1730

people thereat were simply stunned and shocked to find out as
to how this part of the Country could muster such a huge wealth.
Another surprising aspect was that the Indian sub-continent was
under the attack/invasion by outsiders for almost a thousand and
more years in the past and had continuously been looted by
them. Massive wealth continuously was driven off from the
Country, yet when the merchant companies of Britishers in the
form of East India Company visited India, in the first one and
half decade i.e. upto 1613, it showed remarkable earning to their
shareholders and public at large in England. This created great
anxiety amongst the Britishers to know more about India. It also
inspired other European Countries as we have seen that almost
simultaneously the merchant ships travelled India through sea
routes from the Countries like Portugal, France and England
obvious. Trade from India to other Countries, i.e. Africa, Arab,
China etc. had been going on since long and time immemorial
as a result whereof merchants were able to garner extraordinary
wealth by exporting several things like spices, sandalwood etc.
from India. Besides fertile land of this Country also help in
producing wealth. They also found that amongst the Hindus, age
old traditions, religious faith carried down from generations to
generations from time immemorial and had not got diluted
despite several religious attacks, conversions, etc. All these
things, which were really surprising, aroused lot of anxiety
amongst the Europeans to know more about this Country.
1612. According to their concept, the oldest culture in the
world was Roman and Greek and they knew nothing more than
that. It was really difficult for them to believe that a much more
advanced and that too more ancient culture could have existed
in this part of the world for such a long time and has
1731

successfully faced all bad times to survive while the Roman and
Greek culture has perished long back. With this idea lots of
people from Europe came to India and tried to find out the
source of its cultural and religious history from the written work
whatever was available. Since, the work was mainly in Sanskrit,
thus the written material was also available with the selected
Brahmans. Several kinds of manuscripts they possessed which
were collected by these western people in one or other way.
They tried to find out in their own way the most authenticated
and original manuscripts on the subject concerned. A language,
a culture which was several thousands and more years old, it is
surprising that these western intelligentsia class claim to have
learnt and understood and that too achieved mastery. They dealt
with the above collected material in their own way. Without
making any serious comment on this aspect, suffice to mention
that the spirit, the context of real intention of a culture which has
developed in several thousand years is improbable, if not
impossible, to be understood in such a short time. Even today
those who are constantly studying and dealing with those
matters, are still undergoing rigorous discussion, research and
investigation to understand the correct and real intention behind
the particular words, sentences, phrases and verses, as the case
may be.

1613. The only thing which we really find commendable is
that the zeal of the western intelligentsia to know more about the
Indian ancient culture brought out the ancient literature from the
confines of the Brahmans and as a result of its translation in
English and other languages, the things became accessible to the
entire lot so that they may also look into the matter, ponder over
it so as to appreciate and understand. In fact this translation
1732

attracted the world people to go for more indepth research,
discoveries and investigation and that is how the things started
and today in 21st century we find several new and startling facts
which belie a lot of settled concepts of the western writers of
18th or 19th century.

1614. The casual manner in which the long genealogy
covering a very long period was found inconceivable by these
writers and has been shortened at their whims and conjectures
only because they could not have a complete chain is really
startling. It means that if I am unable to tell the chain of my
ancestors to five or seven or ten generations, that would mean
that I have no such past chain of generation or it can be reduced
to the extent of missing part. Non-availability does not mean
non existent. No one can accept that merely because somebody
could not give the detail of past generations, that would mean
that he has no such ancestry. The casual and contemptuous
manner in which Dr. Buchanan or Martin in the above work,
i.e., Eastern India (supra) have dealt with the things we have
quoted give a few example. If some needs a little more can be
demonstrated from page 433 and onwards, some part of which
we may notice hereunder :

“The highest science is here reckoned the theology of
the Vedas, which is more studied, than would appear from
the reports of the Pandit of the survey, who like other
Bengalese holds this science, if such it can be called, in
great contempt. The doctrines of Sangkara are chiefly
followed; and the works most commonly studied are the
Vedantasar, composed by a pupil of Awaitananda, a
Brahman of the south, who dedicated his life to religion;

the Pangchadasi, and the ten Upanishad Bhashyas of
1733

Sangkara. The theologians here insist, that every word,
sentence and verse in the Vedas, as they now exist, was
formed by Brahma before the earth, and that Vyasa did not
alter a syllable; but only arranged the original parts into
four books, which previously had been comprehended in
one. All mention therefore of events, that have happened
since the creation, is supposed to be prophetical. Such, I
believe, is the opinion, that very generally prevails among
the Brahmans of the south, as well as those here; and,
having been communicated to the learned in Europe, was
supposed by them to imply, that the books now called the
Vedas were the work of a great lawgiver named Brahma,
who formed the laws of the Hindu nation, and introduced
science. When it was discovered, that these works
mentioned many personages, who lived very long after the
commencement of the Hindu government, as the power of
prophecy could not be received by any one but a Hindu, it
was justly concluded, that they were not the works of the
lawgiver Brahma, who in fact is a mere creature of
imagination; and Mr. Pinkerton is fully justified in calling
the Vedas modern forgeries, even had Mr. Colebrooke
proved that they were written by Vyasa, and that Vyasa
lived 12 centuries before the birth of Christ; for in
comparison of the commencement of the Hindu history,
before which the Vedas are alleged to have been written,
even this distant period of Vyasa is but as yesterday. But
that the Vedas, which now exist, were written by Vyasa the
son of Parasara, or so early, seems to me completely
incompatible with the mention made in them of the success,
that had attended the ceremony used at the coronation of
1734

Janmejaya the son of Parikshita, by which he had
conquered the world; for Janmejaya was grandson of
Abhimanya, who was the great grandson of Vyasa the son
of Parasara, and it is altogether impossible, that so remote
an ancestor should live to celebrate the conquest of the
world by his descendant. But besides this conquest is not
likely to have been mentioned by any contemporary author;
for in all probability the supreme government of India was
not then vested in the spurious offspring of Vyasa, but in
the house of Jarasandha. Mr. Colebrooke indeed states,
that besides the descendant of Vyasa he has heard from the
Brahmans of another Janmejaya son of Parikshita; but on
a careful examination of the genealogies, extracted from
the Purans by Manogyadatta, I can find no such person;
nor can that learned Pandit recollect any such, although
there are many Janmejayas, especially the son of Puru,
kind of Pratishthan, and the names are so alike, that they
may readily have misled the Pandits consulted by Mr.
Colebrooke, speaking from recollection. If a Vyasa,
therefore, was author of the present Vedas, it was not the
son of Parasara, but some person, who probably lived
shortly before Sangkara Acharya; and many in fact allege,
that the instructor of this great doctor was named Vyasa. If
so, the author, or compiler, or perhaps rather corrupter of
the Vedas, lived about the ninth or tenth century of the
Christian era, in the age emphatically called dark, and to
judge from the account given of the Vedas by Mr.
Colebrooke, the work is worthy of the age.

It is probable, however, that before this time, there
existed a system of science (Veda), extending, according to
1735

a passage quoted by Mr. Colebrooke, not only to the four
kinds of sacred knowledge, detailed in the present Vedas,
but to grammar and history, the first of which in the
passage alluded to is called the chief of the (Vedas)
sciences, although the books now called Vedas do not treat
on the subject. The historical part, there is reason to think,
was valuable; but being irreconcilable with doctrines,
which the author wished to establish, was totally new
modelled in separate works called the Purans. Although all
these go under the name of Vyasa, there is certain grounds
to doubt of his having composed the whole, as it seems
scarcely possible, that any one man in his senses would
attempt to pass on the credulity of mankind a number of
books, treating on the same subject in manners totally
discordant and contradictory, as happens in these works.
Many circumstances mentioned in these Purans, would
show the time in which Vyasa actually lived, could any of
these works be traced with certainty to him; and I suspect,
that not only the historical part (Purana) of the ancient
system of science, but that written by Vyasa has been new
modelled in the various works now called Purans, all
probably very modern, and composed by various persons.”
1615. The long observations, we have just made are in the
context of the fact that the Buchanan’s survey relates to the
earliest part of 19th century, i.e., 1807 to 1814. Aurangzeb died
in 1707 after having ruled for about 50 years. Therefore, the
memory of the people in respect to the incidents which took
place during Aurangzeb were just 100 to 150 years old in
comparison to that of Babar who was there about more than 275
years back. The people’s memory is better reliable in respect to
1736

the recent incidents in comparison to ancient one. The belief of
the local people about the destruction or construction at the
disputed site, in the same way noticed by Tieffenthaler about 50
years back from the period of Buchanan and same thing noticed
by Buchanan, in our view, ought to have been given more
reliability than simply discarding the same on the basis of an
inscription, the possibility whereof was always to be installed at
any later point of time. In the absence of any material or
anything to show that it was fixed almost 272 years back and the
belief of the local people was perverse, we find it difficult to
rely only on the observations of Buchanan based on inscriptions,
the language whereof was not known to him and there is nothing
to show that he could read or understood it.
1616. Sri P.N. Mishra, learned counsel further submitted that
had the building in dispute constructed in 1528 and that too at
the command of Emperor Babar, it would be inconceivable that
Abul Fazal Allami in his work “Ain-e-Akbari” would have
failed to notice the same though, if correct, it would have been
the work of Akbar’s grandfather. He refers to the “Ain-e-
Akbari” written by Abul Fazal Allami, translated in English by
H. Blochmann edited by Leiut. Colonel D.C. Phillott, first
published 1927-1949 reprint 1989 published by Low Price
Publications, Delhi. He pointed out that Abul Fazal Allami has
referred to “Ayodhya” and its religious importance for Hindus
and also certain religious places of Muslims. Therefore, it is
improbable that he would have missed or ignored to mention
about a grand mosque constructed by grandfather of Emperor
Akbar though has mentioned about other places of Ayodhya.
This shows that till the date when the aforesaid work was
written by Abul Fazal, building in dispute had not came into
1737

existence and it is incorrect to suggest that it was constructed in
1528 AD. He explained that this is the reason why we do not
find any such mention in the work of Goswami Tulsidas, a great
follower of Lord Ram. From Volume 1 of “Ain-e-Akbari”, Sri
P.N.Mishra placed certain extracts from page 162 and onwards
to show that a large number of places of worship were
constructed in 983 AH and onwards (see page 179, “Ain-e-
Akbari”) and that tax levelled on non-Muslims was abolished in
987 AH. About the abolition of tax on non-Muslims, page 198
of “Ain-e-Akbari” Vol.-1 quote as under :

“In this year the Tamgha (inland tolls) and the Jazya
(tax on infidels), which brought in several krors of dam
were abolished, and edicts to this effect were sent over the
whole empire.”

1617. He also referred to pages 201, 202 and 203 to show
that the policy of Akbar was not so fanatic and was judicious to
Hindus also. Had there been such a construction at the religious
place of Hindus, the Akbar would have allowed it to be
removed. The various orders and actions as noticed by Allami
in “Ain-e-Akbari” Vol.-1 on pages 201 and onwards are as
under:

“His majesty was now [990] convinced that the
Millenium of the Islamitio dispensation was drawing near.

No obstacle, therefore, remained to promulgating the design
which he had planned in secret. The Shaykhs and Ulamas
who, on account of their obstinacy and pride, had to be
entirely discarded, were gone, and His Majesty was free to
disprove the orders and principles of the Islam, and to ruin
the faith of the nation by making new and absurd
regulations. The first order which was passed was that the
coinage should show the era of the Millenum, and that a
1738

history of the one thousand years should be written, but
commencing from the death of the Prophet. Other
extraordinary innovation were devised as political
expedients, and such orders were given that one’s senses got
quite perplexed. Thus the sijda, or prostration, was ordered
to be performed as being proper for kings; but instead of
sijda, the word zaminbos was used. Wine also was allowed,
if used for strengthening the body, as recommended by
doctors; no mischief or impropriety was to result from the
use of it, and strict punishments were laid down for
drunkenness, or gatherings and uproars. ….

“Beef was interdicted, and to touch beef was
considered defiling. The reason of this was that, from his
youth, His Majesty had been in company with Hindu
liberation, and had thus learnt to look upon a cow- which
in their opinion is one of the reasons why the world still
exists- as something holy. Besides the Emperor was subject
to the influence of the numerous Hindu princess of the
Harem, who had gained so great ascendancy over him as to
make his forswear beef, garlic, onion, and the wearing of a
beard, which things His majesty still avoids. He had also
introduced, though modified by his peculiar views, Hindu
customs and heresies into the court assemblies, and
introduces them still, in order to please and win the
Hindus and their castes; he abstained from everything
which they think repugnant to their nature, and looked upon
shaving the beard as the highest sign of friendship and
affection for him. Hence this custom has become very
general. Pandering pimps also expressed the opinion that
the beard takes its nourishment from the testicles; for no
eunnch had a beard; and one could not could exactly see of
what merit or importance it was to cultivate a beard.

1739

Moreover, former ascetics and looked upon carelessness in
letting the beard grow as one way of mortifying one’s flesh,
because such carelessness exposed them to the reproach of
the world; and so, at present, the silly lawyers of the Islam
looked upon cutting down the beard as reproachful, it was
clear that shaving was now a way of mortifying the flesh,
and therefore praiseworthy, but not letting the beard grow.
(But if any one considers this argument calmly, he will soon
detect the fallacy.) Lying, cheating Muftis also quoted an
unknown tradition, in which it was stated that ‘some Qasis’
of Persia had shaved their beards. But the words ka-ma gaf
alu ba’z’ ‘l-quzdt (as some Qasis have done), which occur in
this tradition, are based upon a corrupt reading, and should
be ka-ma yaf ‘a’ u ba l-gusat (as some wicked men have
done). . .

“The ringing of bells as in use with the Christians,
and the showing of the figure of the cross, and . . . . . . and
other childish anything of theirs; were daily in practice. The
words Kufr shay shud, or ‘heresy’ ‘became common’,
express the Tdrikh (985). Ten or twelve years after the
commencement of these doings, matters had gone so far that
wretches like Mirza Jani, chief of Tattah, and other
apostates, wrote their confessions on paper as follows :- ‘I,
such a one, son of such a one, have willingly and cheerfully
renounced and rejected the Islam in all its phases, whether
low or high, as I have witnessed it in my ancestors and have
joined the Divine Faith of Shah Akbar, and declare myself
willing to sacrifice to him my property and life, my honour
and religion’. And these papers- there could be no more
effective letters of damnation- were handed over to the
Mujtahid ( Abu’l Fazl) of the new creed, and were
considered a source of confidence or promotion. The
1740

Heavens might have parted as under, and earth might have
opened her abyss and the mountains have crumbled to dust!
“In opposition to the Islam, pigs and dogs were no
longer looked upon as unclean. A large number of these
animals was kept in the Harem, and in the vaults of the
castle, and to inspect them daily was considered a religious
exercise. The Hindus, who believe in incarnations, said
that the boar belonged to the ten forms which God
Almighty had once assumed.

“God is indeed Almighty- but not what they say.”
“The saying of some wise men that a dong had ten
virtues, and that a man, if he possesses one of them, was
saint, was also quoted as a proof. Certain courtiers and
friends of His Majesty, who were known for their excellence
in every department, and proverbial as court poets, used to
put dogs on a tablecloth and feed them, whilst other
heretical poets. Persians and Hindustanis, followed this
example, even taking the tongues of dogs into their own
mouths, and then boasting of it.

“Tell the Mir that thou hast, within thy skin, a dog and
a carcass.

“A dog runs about in front of the house; don’t make
him a messmate.

“The ceremonial ablution after emission of semen was
no longer considered binding, and people quoted as proof
that the essence of man was the sperma genitale, which was
the origin of good and bad man. It was absurd that voiding
urine and excrements should not require ceremonial
ablutions, whilst the emission of so tender a fluid should
necessitate ablution; it would be far better, if people would
first bathe, and then have connexion.

“Further, it was absurd to prepare a feast in honour
1741

of a dead person; for the corpse was mere matter, and could
derive no pleasure from the feast. People should therefore
make a grand feast on their birthdays. Such feasts were
called Ash i haydt, food of life.

“The flesh of a wild boar and the tiger was also
permitted, because the courage which these two animals
possess would be transferred to any one who fed on such
meat.

“It was also forbidden to marry one’s cousins or near
relations, because such marriages are destructive of mutual
love. Boys were not to marry before the age of 16, nor girls
before 14, because the offspring of early marriages was
weakly. The wearing of ornaments and silk dresses at the
time of prayer was made obligatory.

“The prayers of the Islam, the fast, nay even the
pilgrimage, were henceforth forbidden. Some bastards, as
the son of Mulla Mubarak, a worthy disciple of Shaykh
Abu’l Fazl wrote treatises, in order to revile and ridicule
our religious practices, of course with proofs. His Majesty
liked such productions, and promoted the authors.

“The era of the Hijrah was now abolished, and a
new era was introduced, of which the first year was the
year of the emperor’s accession (963). The months had the
same names as at the time of the old Persian kings, and as
given in the Nisab” ‘s.sibniyan’. Fourteen festivals also were
introduced, corresponding to the feasts of the Zoroastrians;
but the feasts of the Musalmans, and their glory were
trodden down, the Friday prayer alone being retained
because some old, decrepit, silly people used to go to it. The
new era was called Tdrikh I llahi, or ‘Divine Era’. On
copper coins and gold muhrs, the era of the Millennium was
used, as indicating that the end of the religion of
1742

Muhammad, which was to last one thousand years, was
drawing near. Reading and learning Arabio was looked
upon as a crime; and Muhammadan law, the exegesis of the
Quran, and the Tradition, as also those who studied them,
were considered bad and deserving of disapproval.
Astronomy, philosophy, medicine, mathematics, poetry,
history and novels, were cultivated and thought necessary.
Even the letters which are peculiar to the Arabic language,
ّٰ
as the ‫ث۔‬،‫ع‬،‫ح‬،‫ ص‬،‫ ض‬and ‫ ظ۔‬were avoided. Thus for ‫عببداللہ‬
ّٰ
people wrote ‫ ابداللہ‬Abdullah; and for ‫ احدی‬Ahadi, ‫ اھد‬Ahadi
etc. All this pleased His Majesty. Two verses from the
Shahnama, which Firdawsi gives as part of a story, were
frequently quoted at court-

From eating the flesh of camels and lizards
The Arabs have made such progress,
That they now wish to get hold of the kingdom
of Persia.

Fie upon Fate! Fie upon Fate!
“Similarly other verses were eagerly seized, if they
conveyed a calumny, as the verses from the ……….., in
which the falling out of the teeth of our prophet is alluded
to.

“In the same manner, every doctrine and command of
the Islam, whether special or general as the prophetship,
the harmony of the Islam with reason, the doctrines of Ru
yat, Taklif, and Takwin, the details of the day of
resurrection and judgment- all were doubted and ridiculed.
And if anyone did object to this mode of arguing, his answer
was not accepted. But it is well known how little chance a
man has who cite proofs against one who will reject them,
especially when his opponent has the power of life and
death in his hands; for equality in condition in a sine qud
1743

won in arguing.” (Page 201-206)
“Here Bada, on mentions the translations from
Sanscrit into Persian, which have been alluded to above,
p.110. It is not quite certain whether the translation were
made from Sanscrit or from Hindi translations, or from
both. Bada, on clearly states that for some translations, as
at the Atharban, Hindus were used as interpreters. For
other works as the Mahabharat, there may have been Hindi
translations or extracts, because Akbar himself (vide p.111,
note 2) translated passages to Naqib Khan. Abu’l-Fazl also
states that he was assisted by Pandits when writing the
fourth book of the A-in. Compare Sir H. Elliott’s Index to
the Historians of India, p. 259.” (Page 209)
“In these days (991) new orders were given. The
killing of animals on certain days was forbidden as on
Sundays, because this day is sacred to the Sun; during the
first eighteen days of the month of Farwardin; the whole
month of Ahan (the month in which His Majesty was born);
and on several other days to please the Hindus. This order
was extended over the whole realm, and capital punishment
was inflicted on every one who acted against the command.
Many a family was ruined. During the time of those fasts,
His Majesty abstained altogether from meat, as a religious
penance, gradually extending the several fasts during a
year over six months and even more, with the view of
eventually discontinuing the use of meat altogether.” (Page
209-210)
“In the same year (991) His Majesty built outside the
town two places for feeding poor Hindus and
Muhammadans, one of them being called Khayrpura and
the other Dharmpura. Some of Abu’l-Fazl’s people were put
in charge of them. They spent His Majesty’s money in
1744

feeding the poor. As an immense number of Jogis also
flocked to this establishment, a third place was built, which
got the name of Jogipura.” (Page 210)
“His Majesty once ordered that the Sunnis should
stand separately from the Shiahs, when the Hindustanis,
without exception, went to the Sunni side, and the Persians
to the Shiah side.” (Page 212)
1618. Vol. 2 “Ain-e-Akbari” Page 181 and onwards deals
with “Oudh” and Sri Mishra placed the following part thereof :

“It is situated in the second climate. Its length from
the Sarkar of Gorakhpur to Kanauj is 185 kos. Its breadth
from the northern mountains to Sidhpur on the frontier of
the Subah of Allahabad is 115 kos. To the east is Bihar; to
the north, the mountains; to the south, Manikpur, and to the
west Kanauj. Its climate is good. Summer and winter are
nearly temperate. Its principal streams are the Saru (Sarju),
the Ghaghar (Gogra) the Sai and the Godi (Gumti). In the
first mentioned, divers aquatic animals and foms of strange
appearance show themselves. Agriculture is in a flourishing
state, especially rice of the kinds called Sukhdas, Madhkar,
and Jhanwan, which for whiteness, delicacy, fragrance and
wholesomeness are scarcely to be matched. They sow their
rice three months earlier than in other parts of Hindustan.
When the drought begins, the Sai and Gogra rise high in
flood and before the beginning of the rains, the land is
inundated, and as the waters rise, the stalks of rice shoot up
and proportionately lengthen: the crop, however, is
destroyed if the floods are in full force before the rice is in
ear. Flowers, fruits and game are abundant. Wild buffaloes
are numerous. When the plains are inundated the animals
take to the high ground where the people find sport in
1745

hunting them. Some of the animals remain all day in the
water and only at night approach the dry ground and
breathe in freedom. Awadh (Ajodhya) is one of the largest
cities of India. In is situated in longitude 118°, 0′, and
latitude 27°, 22′. It ancient times its populous site covered
an extent of 148 kos in length and 86 in breadth, and it is
esteemed one of the holiest places of antiquity. Around the
environs of the city, they sift the earth and gold is
obtained. It was the residence of Rama Chandra who in
the Treta age combined in his own person both the
spiritual supremacy and the kingly office.

At the distance of one kos from the city, the Gogra,
after its junction with the Sai, [Saraju] flows below the fort.

Near the city stand two considerable tombs of six and seven
yards in length respectively. The vulgar believe them to be
the resting places of Seth and the prophet Job, and
extraordinary tales are related of them. Some say that at
Ratanpur is the tomb of Kabir, the assertor of the unity of
God.” (Page 181-182)
1619. The above contents are published on pages 170-172 of
“Ain-e-Akbari” by Abul Fazal Allami, translated by Colonel
H.S. Jarrett, Vol. 2, published in 1891 at Calcutta and the
photocopy thereof alongwith its frontispiece has been filed as
Exhibit T6 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 43A-1/25-28) (Register 18,
pages 51-57).

1620. He also referred to the two footnotes one of which is
with respect to Ram and another with respect to Sant Kabir and
read as under : .

“The 7th avatar, who in this capital of the solar
dynasty founded on the chariot wheel of Brahma,
consummated the glories of sixty generations of solar
1746

princes and as the incarnate Rama, i.e. the hero of the
famous epic that bears his name.” (Page 182)
“His doctrines were preached between A.D. 1380 and
1420 and attempted the union of Hindu and Muhammadan
in the worship of one God whether invoked as Ali or Rama.

On his deceased both these sects claimed the body and
while they contested it, Kabir suddenly stood in their midst
and commanding them to look under the shoud, vanished. A
heap of beautiful flowers was there discovered, which,
divided among the rival worshippers, were buried or burnt
according to their respective rites. Pilgrims from upper
India to this day beg a spoonful of rice water from the Kabir
Monastery at Puri in Orissa.” (Page 182)
1621. He also pointed out to page 184 which gives certain
other statistics of Oudh showing that main castes residing
therein were “Brahmans” and “Kumbi”. Then on page 311 of
Vol. 2 Sri Mishra says that Abul Fazal has also taken note of
various incarnations of Lord Vishnu in the form of Varahavatara
or Boar-Incarnation, Nara-Sinha or Man-Lion Incarnation,
Vamana or Dwarj-Incarnation, Parasurama or Incarnation of
Ram with axe, then Ramavatara or Ram Incarnation,
Krishnavatara or Incarnation as Krishna, Buddhavatara or
Buddha Incarnation, Kalkyavatara or Kalki Incarnation. On
pages 316-317, Ramavatara has been described as under :

“They relate that Ravana one of Rakshasas two
generation in descent from Brahma, had ten heads and
twenty hands. He underwent austerities for a period of ten
thousand years in the Kailasa mountain and devoted his
heads, one after another in this penance in the hope of
obtaining the sovereignty of the three worlds. The deity
appeared to him and granted his prayer. The gods were
1747

afflicted by his rule and as in the former instances, solicited
his dethronement which was vouchsafed, and Rama was
appointed to accomplish this end. He was accordingly born
during the Treta Yuga on the ninth of the light half of the
month of Chaitra (March-April) in the city of Ayodhya, of
Kausalya wife of Raja Dasaratha. At the first dawn of
intelligence, he acquired much learning and withdrawing
from all worldly pursuits, set out journeying through wilds
and gave a fresh beauty to his life by visiting holy shrines.

He became lord of the earth and slew Ravana. He ruled for
eleven thousand years and introduced just laws of
administration.” (Page 316-317)
1622. Chapter IX Vol. 2 of “Ain-e-Akbari” deals with
sacred places of pilgrimages and it includes a number of rivers
as well as several places including Ayodhya as under :

“CHAPTER IX
SACRED PLACES OF PILGRIMAGE
Although profound and enlightened moralists are
convinced that true happiness consists in the acquisition of
virtue and recognise no other temple of God but a pure
heart, nevertheless the physicians of the spiritual order,
from their knowledge of the pulsation of human feeling,
have bestowed on certain places a reputation for sanctity
and thus rousing the slumberers in forgetfulness and
instilling in them the enthusiastic desire of seeking God,
have made these shrines instruments for their reverencing
of the just, and the toils of the pilgrimage a means of
facilitating the attainment of their aim.

These holy places are of four degrees.

The first is termed deva or divine and dedicated to
Brahma, Vishnu and Mahadeva. The greatest among these
1748

are twenty-eight rivers in the following orders:- [P.177] (1)
Ganges, (2) Sarasvati, (3) Jamuna, (4) Narbada, (5) Vipasa,
Known as Biah (Hyphasis), (6) Vitasta (Hydaspes or
Bidaspes) known as the Bihat, (7) Kausiki, a river near
Rhotas in the Panjab, but some place it in the neighborhood
of Garhi in the eastern districts (8) Nandavati (9)
Chandrabhaga, known as the Chenab, (10) Sarayu (Sarju)
known as the Sarau, (11) Satyavati, (12) Tapi known as
Tapti upon the (north) bank of which is Burhanpur. (13)
Paravati, (14) Pasavati (15) Gomati (Gumti) near Dvaraka.
(16) Gandaki, upon the banks of which is Sultanpur of the
Subah of Oudh, (17) Bahuda, (18) Devika (Deva or Gogra).
(19) Godavari, called also Banganga. Pattan of the Dekhan
is situated on its bank. (20) Tamraparni at the extremity of
the Dekhan. Here pearls are found. (21) Charmanvati (22)
Varana, near Benares (23) Iravti, known as the Ravi
(Hydraotes), Lahor is on its bank. (24) Satadru (the
hundred-Channelled), known as the Sutlej. Ludhiana is
upon its bank. (25) Bhimarathi, [178] called also the
Bhima, in the Dekhan. (26) Parnasona. (27) Vanjara, in the
Dekhan, (28) Achamiyya, Some include the Indus, but it is
not of the same sanctity.

Each of these rivers as dedicated to one of these deities,
has peculiar characteristics ascribed to it: Some of the
places situated on their banks are esteemed holy, as, for
example, the village of Soron on the Ganges, to which
multitudes flock on the twelfth of the month of Aghan (Nov-
Dec). Some regard certain cities as dedicated to the
divinities. Among these are Kasi, commonly called
Benares. The Adjacent country for five kos around the city
is held sacred. Although pilgrimages take place throughout
1749

the year, on the Siva-ratri multitudes resort thither from
distant parts and it is considered one of the most chosen
places in which to die. Final liberation is said to be
fourfold: (1) Salokya passing from the degrees of paradise
to Kailasa. They say that when a man goes to heaven
through good works, he must return to earth, but when
after various transmigrations, he attains that region, he
returns no more (2) Sarupya (assimilation to the deity);
when a man partakes of the divine elementary form, he
does nor revisit the earth. (3) Samipya (nearness to the
deity) is when a man after breaking the elemental bonds,
by the power of good works is admitted into the presence
of God’s elect, and does not return to earth. (4) Sayuiya
(absorption into the deity); after passing through all
intermediate stages, he obtains the bliss of true liberation.
They have likewise divided the territory of Benares into
four kinds. The characteristic of two parts is that when a
being dies therein, he attains the fourth degree of Mukti; if
he dies in one of the others, he reaches the third degree,
and if in the remaining one, the second degree.

Ayodhya, commonly called Awadh. The distance of
forty kos to the east, and twenty to the north is regarded as
sacred ground. On the ninth of the light half of the
month of Chaitra a great religious festival is held.

Avantika, Ujjain. All around it for thirty-two kos is
accounted holy and a large concourse takes place on the
Siva-ratri.

Kanchi (Conjervaram) in the Dekhan. For twenty
kos around it is considered sacred. On the eighth of every
Hindu month that falls on a Tuesday, there is a great
concourse of pilgrims.

1750

Mathura is sacred for forty-eight kos around, and
even before it became the birthplace of Krishna, was held in
veneration. Religious festivals are held on the 23rd of the
month of Bhadra (Aug-Sept) and the 15th of Karitika (Oct-
Nov).

Duaraka. The country for forty kos in length and
twenty in breadth is esteemed holy. On the Dlwalt festival,
crowds resort hither.

Maya, known as Haridvra (Hardwar) on the Ganges.
It is held sacred for eighteen kos in length. Large numbers
of pilgrims assemble on the 10th of Chaitra.
These seven are called the seven (sacred) cities.

Prayaga now called Illahabas. The distance for
twenty kos around is venerated. They say that the desires
of a man that dies here are gratified in his next birth. They
also hold that whoever commits suicide is guilty of a great
crime except in this spot where it meets with exceeding
reward. Throughout the year it is considered holy, but
especially so during the month of Magha (Jan-Fab).

Nagarkot For eight kos round it is venerated. On the
eighth of the months of Chaitra and Kartika, many
pilgrims assemble.

Kashmir is also accounted of this class and is
dedicated to Mahadeva. Many places in it are held in great
veneration.

The second are the shrines of the Asuras, which are
temples dedicated to the Daitya race. In many things they
share the privileges of the devatas; but the latter are more
pure, while the others are filled with the principle of tamas
(darkness). Their temples are said to be in the lower
regions (Patala).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.332 seconds.